get_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It honestly warns that the data array can be huge and blow the token limit, explains the dataTileCount alternative, and notes the default of includeData. This is valuable disclosure of a significant behavioral trait, though it doesn't cover other potential behaviors like error handling or exact response structure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical caveat and the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place: no filler, no repetition, and it is compact while conveying essential usage 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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description addresses the most significant contextual concern—the token limit and how to mitigate it with includeData and get_map_region. It also hints at the output via 'dataTileCount,' but it doesn't fully describe what the map data includes or any expected response format, leaving a slight gap in completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why includeData exists (token limit), what the data array size formula is (width*height*6 ints), and that passing false gives dataTileCount. It also clarifies the default behavior, enhancing the parameter semantics beyond the schema's own description.

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 begins with 'Get map data by ID,' which is a specific verb plus resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_map_region by explicitly contrasting the use of get_map_region for reading tiles when includeData is false. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by explaining the token limit issue and instructing to pass includeData:false to avoid it, and to use get_map_region for reading tiles. It also notes the default behavior for backward compatibility, giving clear context on how to invoke the tool correctly versus alternatives.

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