Get map object

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

Despite annotations already indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial value by detailing the return structure (geometry, styling, properties), handling of value types (scalar, enum, object-reference, nested, oversized), and template expansion behavior including merge rules and error handling ('fail closed').

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 front-loaded with the main action and packs detailed information, but it is somewhat dense and could be more concise. However, every sentence provides necessary behavioral details.

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's complexity, the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: return values, edge cases (oversized entries, template failure), and template behavior. It provides a comprehensive understanding without relying on the output schema.

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 50% (only mapPath has a description; objectId lacks one). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the overall return context, which partially compensates but does not fully clarify the meaning or usage of each parameter.

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 the tool 'Returns one supported object' with specific details like shape-specific geometry, text styling, and custom properties. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tiled_list_objects by emphasizing the complete and detailed nature of the returned object.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single object with full details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tiled_list_objects. No exclusionary guidance or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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