generate_path_map

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about generating a visual map for planned routes, which aligns with the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like whether the map is interactive, how POI data is sourced, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning key parameters or output format. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage.

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 (visual map generation with POI data), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but doesn't cover output format (e.g., image file, URL), error handling, or data sourcing details. With annotations providing safety context, it meets basic needs but has clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. For example, it doesn't clarify how 'title' relates to 'data' or the map output. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as 'Generate a route map to display the user's planned route, such as travel guide routes.' This specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('route map'), and context ('planned route'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on route visualization rather than charts or other diagrams, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'generate_pin_map' or 'generate_district_map'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'travel guide routes' as an example, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'generate_pin_map' for point-based maps or 'generate_district_map' for area-based maps. Usage is implied rather than explicitly defined.

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