Inspect map viewport images

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by stating the output is image content and listing specific visual checks, which enhances transparency beyond the annotations.

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 focused sentences: the first describes the output and inspection capability, the second states the prerequisite. No wasted words; front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the output format, prerequisite, and inspection purpose. It lacks detail about the focus parameter and error handling, but is sufficient for typical use.

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 50% (only 'paths' documented in schema). The description adds some context by listing inspection areas, hinting at the purpose of the 'focus' parameter, but does not explicitly explain parameter semantics or defaults, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 states it returns viewport captures as image content for visual inspection of specific map quality aspects like seams and collisions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly linking to discover_map_artifacts as the source of valid paths.

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?

The description explicitly requires paths to come from discover_map_artifacts, providing a clear prerequisite. While it does not list when to avoid using the tool, the context implies it is for visual inspection after discovering artifacts.

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