Render map as text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that 'symbols' composites the topmost tile of layers 0-3, that a legend is emitted, and that the default region is capped at 100x60 from the top-left. It doesn't state read-only-ness or what happens when layer is omitted in 'ids' mode, which would have closed the loop.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the mode/region details; nothing is wasted. The second sentence is dense and chains several clauses together, which costs a bit of scannability.

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?

For a 7-parameter render tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient: it conveys the output medium, the legend behavior, the compositing rule and the region limits. The exact return payload shape and whether the legend text is part of the same string are the only loose ends.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and mostly does: it explains mode semantics, the layer parameter ('or only `layer`'), and the meaning plus default of x/y/width/height including a 100x60 cap that appears nowhere in the schema. Only mapId is left unexplained, and that gap is trivial.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Show a map's tiles as text') plus the intent ('check what you painted'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling render_map_image. The two modes are named and characterized, so an agent knows exactly what output shape to expect.

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 gives clear usage context ('so you can check what you painted') and states which mode to pick: 'symbols' is default for a visual read, 'ids' for raw tile ids of a single layer. It never explicitly contrasts itself with render_map_image, so the alternative-routing is implied rather than stated.

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