map_export

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that PNG and PDF return base64-encoded blobs with mimeType, that the client decodes and saves the file, and that the server extends the timeout to 30s for large maps. It could go further by explicitly stating the operation is read-only/non-destructive, but the provided behavioral details are substantial.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the core function and formats, the second addresses encoding and timeout behavior. Information is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 an export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key operational details: formats, base64 encoding, mimeType, client-side saving, and timeout adjustment. Missing are the exact JSON return format and differentiation from map_export_sheet, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%: both parameters have descriptions and format has an enum. The description adds marginal context by explaining that sheet_id can be omitted for the active sheet and that format defaults to 'json'. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage, with only slight additional value.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Export current or specified sheet as JSON / PNG / PDF.' It clearly conveys the three supported formats and the sheet scope. No explicit differentiation from sibling tool map_export_sheet, which may have overlapping functionality, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like map_export_sheet. The phrase 'current or specified' implies flexibility but does not explain when to omit vs. provide sheet_id. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are given.

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