get_map_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that the result includes layers and elements and that retrieval is by map ID, which communicates the basic read behavior. It does not mention auth, error handling, or response details, but for a simple 'get' operation this level is minimally adequate.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds only the necessary parameter explanation. No sentence is wasted and the structure is easy to scan.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description gives the core purpose, the parameter meaning, and a useful hint about returned content. It lacks only explicit comparative guidance against get_map_layers, which would make it fully complete.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description's Args section explicitly defines `map_id` as 'The ID of the map to retrieve.' This adds meaning beyond the bare string property and fully explains the only required parameter, though it omits any format or pattern details.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific Felt map') and even indicates the return content ('including its layers and elements'). It is unambiguous about the object of the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool get_map_layers.

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 impies targeted single-map retrieval via `map_id`, which logically excludes list_maps and create_new_map. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when get_map_layers would be more appropriate, and no exclusions or alternatives.

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