get_map_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Show" implies a non-mutating read, and it discloses the categories of state returned, which is useful. However, it says nothing about failure behavior (empty/unset map), permissions, or whether the returned state is cached or live.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the verb and the returned content. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it does list the three things returned, which is adequate for a zero-arg getter. It stops short of describing the return structure, error conditions, or when the call is worthwhile, leaving clear gaps for a tool that is the only way to inspect current map state.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter meaning is lost.

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?

Specific verb ("Show") plus a named resource ("map state") and an enumeration of what is returned: project shape, output CRS, and layers added so far. That clearly separates it from mutating siblings like add_layer or reset_map, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions (e.g., that a project area must be set first), and no reference to siblings such as list_layer_types or inspect_dataset. Usage is only implied by the verb "Show".

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