os_offline_get

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

The description aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by indicating a read-style 'Return' operation. It adds the concept of 'handoff skeletons', implying placeholders rather than full tile data, but it does not explain auth needs, output structure, or behavioral edge cases. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource. It wastes no words, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with five parameters.

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?

Despite having an output schema and safety annotations, the description leaves major gaps: no parameter explanations, no usage context, and no relation to sibling tools. An agent would struggle to know how to populate bbox, title, or includeOverlayTemplate correctly.

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 carries the burden for explaining parameters, but it only vaguely references a pack via 'for a PMTiles/MBTiles pack'. It does not clarify bbox, title, includeOverlayTemplate, or the required packId semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('offline delivery handoff skeletons') scoped to PMTiles/MBTiles packs. It is unambiguous about what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like os_offline_descriptor.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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