get_maplibre_map_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only, informational behavior ('Return instructions and live data') and an explicit constraint, but does not describe output format, data freshness, authentication needs, or any other operational behavior. It is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely compact, front-loading the core function in the first sentence and using the second sentence to state an important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly, especially by differentiating MapLibre from ArcGIS. The absence of an output schema makes the vague 'live data' slightly incomplete, but the simplicity of the tool lowers the expectation for detailed return-value documentation.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no semantics for the description to clarify. The schema is complete for this no-input tool, and the description does not need to add parameter-level context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('instructions and live data for a MapLibre GL JS 5.14.0 map'), making the tool's function immediately identifiable. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ArcGIS tool by stating it is ONLY for MapLibre.

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 gives clear usage boundaries: it is exclusively for MapLibre and must not generate ArcGIS code. This directly tells an agent when to select this tool over the sibling get_arcgis_map_instructions, leaving no ambiguity about the supported framework.

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