get_map_canvas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not the return format (image blob, base64, path), not whether robot_sn must be online, not any failure mode. This is a complete disclosure gap for an undocumented tool.

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?

It is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The bilingual restatement of the name occupies the entire description without front-loading any actionable information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is inadequate for a two-required-parameter tool. The agent has no basis for knowing what a 'map canvas' is or what it receives in return.

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 description adds nothing about map_id or robot_sn. With two required, entirely undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent guessing at accepted values and relationships.

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 'Get map canvas' restates the tool name almost verbatim, adding no verb detail, scope, or resource clarification beyond what the name already conveys. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_map_resources or list_robot_maps.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot infer from the text whether this returns canvas imagery, metadata, or a URL, nor when to prefer it over list_map_resources.

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