maps_streetview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'Open' and 'using an official Google Maps URL' but does not explain what happens after invocation (e.g., does it return a URL, trigger navigation?), potential side effects, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely causes an external action.

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 concise sentence with a clear subject-verb-object structure and no redundant wording. It is effectively front-loaded, though it could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description only covers the basic purpose, omitting any explanation of optional parameters, the return format, or how this differs from maps_show. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with non-default parameters.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. While latitude and longitude are self-explanatory from the word 'coordinates', the optional parameters fov, pitch, and heading are entirely undefined, leaving their purpose and acceptable values ambiguous.

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 action ('Open') and the resource ('Street View') with a location ('at coordinates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maps_search, maps_directions, and maps_show, which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, offering no explicit decision support.

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