render_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the HTML is shareable and no server is needed, and describes layer types and compare logic. However, it does not disclose side effects like file overwriting (out_path default null implies temporary file?), permissions, or cleanup. The description gives moderate transparency but has gaps.

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 relatively concise with clear bullet points for layer types. It front-loads the main purpose and uses structured examples. While it could be slightly shorter, every sentence adds value and the organization aids readability.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 3 required) and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior and layer types. It mentions the return value (file path) but output schema likely exists. However, it lacks guidance for 'bbox' and 'out_path', and does not explain what happens when 'compare' is not set. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed structure for the 'layers' parameter (examples of each type) and explains 'compare' behavior. However, it does not describe 'bbox', 'title', 'subtitle', or 'out_path' in any detail. Thus, it adds significant value for some parameters but misses others.

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: 'Write a self-contained interactive HTML map and return its file path.' The verb 'write' and resource 'interactive HTML map' are specific, and the outcome is clearly stated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'preview_item' or 'tile_url_template' which do not write full HTML 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?

The description provides some usage guidelines, especially for the 'compare' parameter (swipe vs overlay) and explains that item layers auto-resolve. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling list, such as 'preview_item' for quick previews. The context is helpful but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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