View the current map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output format ('monochrome text'), the source/freshness ('the same picture the split-pane watcher shows live'), and the read-only intent ('check the map state', 'show it inline'). It does not detail error behavior or side effects, but the render/show framing makes the non-destructive nature clear.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function and output format; the second provides practical use cases. Every phrase adds value and the key information is front-loaded.

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 optional parameters fully described in the schema, this description is sufficient. It tells the user what the output looks like, how fresh the content is, and when to invoke the tool, so no important context is missing.

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 input schema fully documents both page and zoom, including their semantics and defaults. The description does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Render the current Mellos map as monochrome text.' It also distinguishes this view/read tool from its mutating siblings (mmap_declare, mmap_update, mmap_remove) by emphasizing that it shows the live map rather than modifying it.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it to check the map state or to show it inline in conversation.' This clearly states when to use the tool, and the sibling names imply the alternatives, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it.

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