neshan_static_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool renders a PNG image, without mentioning behavioral traits like destructive potential, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how output is returned (binary, URL, etc.).

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's primary function. No extraneous content.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not specify the return format (e.g., PNG binary, data URL), how to use the output, or any constraints (e.g., max image size beyond schema boundaries). This likely leaves an agent uncertain about result handling.

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 low (43%) with only zoom, marker, and map_type documented. The description adds that the map is centered on the given coordinate (lat, lng), but width, height, and other parameters lack any additional explanation. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 renders a static map image in PNG format centered on a coordinate. This distinguishes it from interactive map tools (neshan_map_view) and route-based tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling neshan_static_map_arc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. While the purpose is implied by the name and description, explicit context is missing.

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