squidmaps

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

Beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the link lifetime ('works for an hour after the map last changed'), the recipient's continuation path (add to account, publish and share for good), and the returned id/editToken. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose then link behavior then the returned credentials and next step. Dense but every clause carries information; the middle sentence about the recipient's account flow is slightly long but not wasteful.

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?

With one required nested parameter, no output schema, and no enum guidance, the description supplies what's missing: where the document spec lives, the link expiry semantics, and the id/editToken return values. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the nested 'map' object is already well documented in the schema; the description adds value by naming the authoritative document source (get_map_spec) rather than re-listing fields. It doesn't add meaning about individual properties beyond that pointer, so it sits just above baseline.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Make a web map of places, routes or areas') plus the outcome ('get a link anyone can open'), which clearly separates it from preview_map (view without publishing) and update_map (modify existing). An agent can select it without inspecting 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?

It explicitly routes the change-existing case to update_map ('keep them, to change this map with update_map rather than making another') and points to get_map_spec for the document format. It doesn't mention when to prefer preview_map instead, so usage guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful context about what the spec covers, though it does not describe the exact return format or whether examples are included.

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?

The description is two tight sentences that front-load the trigger ('Read this first when someone wants a map') and then give the content scope and next step. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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 parameterless reference tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: when to call it, what it contains, and which sibling to use afterward. The annotations already cover the safety profile, so no additional behavioral warning is needed.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter values for the description to explain, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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?

The description clearly identifies this as the reference/specification tool for writing squidmaps maps, listing the concrete contents: GeoJSON features, styling, popups, title panel, and legend. It also distinguishes it from create_map by positioning this as the read-first step before making a map.

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?

It explicitly says to read this first when someone wants a map, covering places, routes, areas, and data like CSV or GeoJSON. It then names the follow-up alternative, create_map, so the sequencing and purpose are unambiguous.

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

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: what the render actually contains (location, styles, title panel, legend) and a hard cap of 1,000,000 total pixels that the schema's per-dimension maxima do not enforce.

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?

It is front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by sizing guidance. The conversational second-person phrasing is slightly wordy, but every sentence carries information about defaults, aspect ratio, or limits.

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 read-only preview renderer with full schema coverage and no output schema, all the information needed to call it correctly is present: default size, aspect-ratio options, and the total pixel constraint. Only the exact return format (for example, whether the image is inline or a URL) is left unstated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, width and height, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds orientation-based sizing advice (taller for north–south maps, wider for east–west) and the 'what fits on screen' semantics, which is genuinely more than the schema says; that could justify a notch above baseline, but the core parameter meanings still come from the schema.

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?

The description states a concrete verb+resource: it renders a picture of a map created by create_map so it can be checked before sharing. That clearly separates it from create_map and update_map. It never names get_map_spec, so the differentiation from that sibling is left implicit.

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?

It gives a clear use context ('to check it before you share the link'), which tells an agent when this tool applies. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance is useful but incomplete.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the link is preserved and continues to work for another hour, the whole document replaces the prior map, and the call fails once the map has been added to an account. These are consequences and preconditions an agent could not infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the replacement constraint, followed by the failure condition. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the full-replacement payload semantics, the link-preservation side effect, expiry timing and the hard failure condition. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or recognize when it cannot.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents id, editToken and map. The description still adds genuine semantics beyond it: map must be the complete document rather than a diff, because the payload replaces the existing map. That constraint is not expressible in the schema and materially affects how the agent builds the call.

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 and resource ('Change a map') and anchors it to the sibling that produces the resource ('made with create_map'), so an agent can separate it from create_map, preview_map and get_map_spec without opening a 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?

Gives a clear trigger ('when the person asks for changes') and implicitly routes creation to create_map. It does not name an explicit when-not-use alternative such as preview_map for verifying a document before applying it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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