Connect map tile overlay

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what the scaffold includes (tile layer maps, viewport metadata, attribution rows, adapter source, token/cache safety notes). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's creation behavior without contradicting the hints.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists key components efficiently. There is no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, this complex creation tool requires a more complete description. The one-sentence description does not address parameter usage, expected outputs, or how the scaffold integrates into a project. It leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 only 18% (only name and parent_path have descriptions). The description does not explain any of the 11 parameters, nor does it relate the listed scaffold components to specific parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'map-tile overlay scaffold' with enumerated components (tile layer maps, viewport metadata, attribution rows, adapter source, token/cache safety notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_raytk_op or connect_webrtc_browser_input.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The only implied usage is that it creates a map-tile overlay scaffold, which is not enough to inform selection among many similar creation tools.

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