get_map_extent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey meaningful scope (all layers combined, not the view or a single layer), and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. Still, it says nothing about whether a map must be open/active, what happens with empty or layerless maps, or whether the extent is recomputed on each call.

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?

One sentence with no waste and the key scope qualifier ('combined, all data layers') front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema present), so minimal prose is acceptable. But with no annotations, the description should have covered at least the read-only nature and the active-map fallback context; the essential shape is inferable but not stated.

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 single map_name parameter is already documented as defaulting to the active map. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 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 identifies the resource and the computed value ('combined extent of all data layers in a map'), which is more informative than the bare name. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states that the tool reads/returns this extent rather than setting it. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_map_view or set_map_frame_extent.

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 at all — no indication of when an agent should call this instead of get_map_view, get_layer_info, or zoom_to_layer. The only usage hint comes from the schema parameter default ('defaults to the active map'), not the description.

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