build_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: keyless basemap (no token needed), a localhost server is started, and the caller receives a URL to open. It omits server lifecycle (does it keep running, on what port, how is it stopped), failure behavior for invalid dataset_ids, and whether writes occur on disk.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the post-call action (open the URL) as the trailing detail. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers what the tool produces at a high level. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, three of four parameters and the server's behavior remain undocumented.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: only dataset_ids is hinted at via 'from loaded datasets.' The default basemap ('imagery') is only obliquely gestured at by 'keyless basemap,' and title and labels are never mentioned at all.

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 ('Build an interactive 2D web map'), names the rendering stack (ArcGIS Maps SDK) and the input source (loaded datasets), and says it serves the result on localhost. It never explicitly contrasts with build_scene (3D) or export_static_map, so an agent must infer the 2D-vs-3D and interactive-vs-static split from adjectives alone.

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?

'from loaded datasets' implies the prerequisite that data must first be loaded via load_hk_data, and 'open the returned URL in your client's browser' tells the agent what to do after. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to build_scene or export_static_map for alternative output shapes.

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