get_map

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating read. The description adds that the map is 'current' (a snapshot rather than a stream), but says nothing about behavior when the vacuum is offline, image size/resolution, or freshness/caching, so it adds only modest context.

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, zero filler; the capability and its contents come first and the parameter prerequisite is appended last. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating what the PNG contains. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only edge-case behavior (offline vacuum, errors) left unaddressed.

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% and the lone parameter has no schema-level description, so the description carries the load — and it does explain the parameter's provenance ('Get `duid` from list_devices'). It stops short of specifying the expected format of the identifier.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (current home map of one vacuum) with an explicit return format (PNG image) and enumerated contents (rooms, walls, dock, robot position). This is unmistakable against siblings like get_status or list_devices.

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?

Adds a prerequisite chain by telling the agent to obtain `duid` from list_devices, which is real routing guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. vacuum offline) or name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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