get_map_size_advisory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is an advisory (read-only) tool and enumerates the return content, but it does not explicitly state side effects, failure conditions, or data format, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output contents followed by usage guidance. No filler, each sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, so the description lists all key return items (screens, counts, density, budget, warnings) and explains the optional purpose parameter. The tool is simple enough that this is sufficient, though exact units or response shape are not specified.

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?

MapId is only implied as 'an EXISTING map' and lacks explicit meaning, while purpose is explained in both schema and description ('check the size against its sweet spot'). With schema coverage at 50%, the description adds some context but does not fully compensate for the undocumented mapId.

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 identifies the tool as providing design/size advisory for existing maps, listing concrete outputs (screens, counts, density, budget, warnings). It distinguishes itself from sibling map tools by emphasizing 'EXISTING map' and 'editing a map' context, though it uses a noun phrase rather than a strong verb.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this first when editing a map' and explains the optional purpose parameter is for checking size against its sweet spot. It gives a clear usage context but does not mention when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools, so slightly below a perfect score.

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