Get map configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's real addition is the instruction that the return values are not conversational content — useful, but it stops short of saying who consumes the output or whether calling it is a prerequisite for map rendering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the internal-only scoping before the return-value explanation. Nothing is padded and nothing repeats the annotations.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with zero parameters there is no input burden. It covers internal scope and display guidance; only the calling context (who or what triggers it) is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Correctly, it does not waste words on inputs that do not exist.

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 concretely what it returns — the values needed to load the INAVI Maps Web SDK — and marks its scope as 'internal to the map template'. That separates it from the user-facing geo siblings, though the resource itself is abstract ('config') rather than a precise object.

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?

'Internal to the map template' and 'nothing here to show in the conversation' imply this is a plumbing call whose output should not be surfaced to the user. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus leaving it to the host app, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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