show_on_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important quirks: only Crude Oil layer tokens are confirmed, others are flagged, and a wrong token still opens the map in the correct location. It also explains how resource names switch overlays. However, it does not mention what happens for an invalid target or whether any side effects occur (though a link generator is likely read-only).

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear explanation of target, and a focused warning about layer tokens. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description gives a good overview of the tool's behavior and key parameter 'target', but it leaves gaps: no explicit output format (though 'map link' implies it), no explanation of the other parameters (save, zoom, world), and no list of valid layer tokens beyond Crude Oil. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more detail would be needed for complete guidance.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates by adding detail for the key parameter 'target' (coordinate in metres, 'me', factory label, node id, resource name) and explains the behavior for resource names. It also adds context for 'layers' (token confirmation caveat). However, 'save', 'zoom', and 'world' are not addressed in the description, limiting full compensation.

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 tool creates a satisfactory-calculator.com map link centred on a target with layers enabled. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like factory_map, which might also show map locations. The detailed target types (coordinate, 'me', factory label, node id, resource name) add clarity beyond the tool name.

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 implies usage by explaining what target can be (e.g., 'node id from search_resource_nodes') but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance and does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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