render_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rendering on Canvas 2D with CartoDB Positron tiles, supports pan, zoom, click inspection, and categorical coloring, and mentions a default limit of 2000. This is sufficient for a read-only rendering tool, though it could mention performance or data size limits.

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 well-structured with a bold purpose statement, usage guideline, technical details, and a clear parameter list. It is mostly concise, though the usage guideline is repetitive. No wasted words; each sentence contributes value.

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?

The description covers input parameters and behavior well, but lacks details about the output artifact (beyond calling it an interactive HTML artifact) and does not address error handling, performance, or edge cases like empty layers. Given the presence of an output schema, some output explanation could be expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters: path (file/directory), layer (name or first), limit (max features, default 2000), color_by (categorical field), where (SQL filter), and bbox (spatial extent with coordinate list format). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 is 'HERRAMIENTA PRINCIPAL para visualizar datos espaciales' and specifies it should be used whenever a user requests a map, visualization, render, or view. It distinguishes from Claude's internal visualization capabilities, making the purpose specific and 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 explicitly says 'Úsala SIEMPRE que el usuario pida un mapa' (always use it for maps) and warns against using Claude's internal visualization. While it positions itself as the primary tool, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or compare with sibling tools, but the context is clear enough.

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