fa_get_flight_map

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the filesystem side effect (writes PNG to disk), the default location ($AEROAPI_OUTPUT_DIR or cwd), the env-var containment constraint, and both return shapes (path or base64). It stops short of auth or rate-limit 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?

A single sentence with two tight clauses, front-loading what the tool returns before describing the write and inline alternatives. No filler, no redundancy.

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 carries the return-value burden by naming both the file path and inline base64 outcomes, and it discloses the side effect for a mutating call. It is largely complete, with only minor gaps around failure modes and the env-var constraint being restated rather than fully explained.

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 all six parameters including width, height, inline, and output_dir are already documented. The description reinforces the inline/output_dir semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (rendered map image, PNG), and the required identifier (fa_flight_id). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling fa_get_flight_track (data vs rendered image), leaving that distinction to inference.

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 explains the two output modes but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as fa_get_flight_track or fa_get_flight_route. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection conditions.

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