Map List

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: permission nuance ('Read-only for campaign members; non-DMs may see only the current map') and the explicit non-effects (no switching, no token placement). 'Repeated calls leave game state unchanged' merely restates idempotentHint, which costs it a point.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternative routing, then permissions, then failure modes — a sensible ordering with no padding. Slight redundancy remains: idempotency is restated despite idempotentHint, and the return-shape sentence is partly redundant with the output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: scope, the sibling it is not, caller-dependent visibility, and the distinction between tool-body failures and MCP argument errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the description neither omits nor misstates anything. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the schema needs compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List maps accessible in the configured campaign') plus the agent-facing goal ('choose a map ID and inspect dimensions'), which distinguishes it from the related write tool map_switch. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use map_switch to activate one; listing does not switch maps or place tokens.' It also contextualizes why to call it (to obtain a map ID). It stops short of spelling out a when-not-to-use case, but the alternative routing is unusually clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.