render_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it composites all 3 tile layers, lacks priority/overhead draw-order, fog/panorama/weather, autotile animation, and event sprites. It also details asset resolution (project Graphics/ then RTP) and default output location, which is excellent transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, use case, limitations, asset resolution, and output path are each covered in a single sentence with no waste. The key verb 'Render' leads the first sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 and the rich schema covering all 8 parameters, the description provides all necessary behavioral context: output format (PNG), return value (file path), limitations, and file system behavior. No output schema is needed because the return is a simple path.

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 100%, and the schema descriptions already explain each parameter well. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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-resource pair: 'Render a map's tile layers to a flat top-down PNG preview... and return the file path.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from map-editing siblings like set_map_tiles or fill_region by emphasizing it produces a viewable preview outside the editor.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to SEE a map you built/edited and self-check it,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to avoid confusion with map data retrieval or tile editing tools.

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