get_map_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the output format is clarified. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or behavior when the optional 'state' parameter is supplied.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core function, output format, and two primary use cases without unnecessary detail.

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 simple getter tool, the return format is stated, but the interplay between the optional 'state' input parameter and the returned configuration is ambiguous. With no output schema, the description should clarify whether providing a state filters or transforms the result. This gap reduces completeness.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (state and session_id) with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the output can be used as 'state' for other tools, which links the output format to the state parameter and clarifies the intended usage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'current map configuration' and explicitly states the output format ('as a JSON string'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_layer or set_map_view, which mutate the 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 indicates the tool is for 'inspection or as 'state' for other tools,' which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_layers or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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