Primers passos amb mapicgc-gl-js

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns—installation instructions and a minimal functional map example—which implies a read-only retrieval operation, though it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects.

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, front-loaded with the concrete deliverables and followed by a concise usage cue. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and when to use it. The main gap is that it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from get_example, which also sounds example-oriented.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output content instead.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns installation instructions (NPM and CDN) plus a minimal working map example using mapicgc-gl-js. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish the content from sibling tools like get_example or search_docs.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: useful as a first step when someone wants to start a new project with the library. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is explicit.

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