compose_map

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

With no annotations, the description bears full disclosure duty. It explains that bbox is lon/lat, that projection, pixel grid, and legend filtering are handled automatically, and that sources are ordered bottom-first. This meaningfully describes behavior beyond the bare schema and gives the agent operational expectations, though it stops short of describing output format or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. The first sentence states the operation; the second packs the essential input semantics. Every clause earns its place.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious aspects: named compositions, source ordering, legend modes, and automatic projection/pixel-grid handling. It does not spell out whether composition and sources may be combined, nor the exact returned format, but these are minor gaps given the strong operational guidance provided.

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 must compensate. It explains bbox coordinates, the composition-or-sources choice, bottom-first ordering, and legend_mode values with a use recommendation for 'separate'. Width, height, and title are not deeply explained, but the statement about pixel-grid handling and the param names provide enough orientation for a capable agent.

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 opens with a specific operation and resource: 'Compose one map from several sources, aligned, with a combined legend.' This clearly distinguishes compose_map from sibling tools like query_layer, get_legend, and export_map by framing it as multi-source assembly. It also names the two input modes (composition or sources), removing ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear usage context: use a declared `composition` or list `sources` bottom-first, and choose `legend_mode` with a specific recommendation for geological keys. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to route correctly among siblings.

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