Retrieve a map excerpt around a researcher-selected HistoryQuest candidate to check coordinates, but note they do not establish historical parcel boundaries.
Retrieve a map excerpt around a researcher-selected HistoryQuest candidate. Candidate coordinates do not establish historical parcel boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | ||
| sourceId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| radiusMeters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description uses the read verb 'retrieve' and never explains why a retrieval is not read-only (caching, logging, generation?, nor does it describe side effects or return behavior. The coordinate caveat is domain context, not behavioral disclosure.
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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded, and the caveat placed second. No filler, though the caveat could be integrated more economically.
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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that conflict with the 'retrieve' framing, the description should clarify parameters and the non-read-only nature. It leaves an agent unable to confidently construct the call.
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% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. 'Around a candidate' loosely hints at radiusMeters and the candidate identifiers, but projectId, runId, sourceId, and the radius range (25-1000m) are left entirely unexplained.
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 a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (map excerpt) scoped to a researcher-selected candidate, which is clearer than most siblings. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling map_search, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or pointer to alternatives such as map_search are given. The second sentence is a domain caveat about coordinates rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.