create_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details. It mentions includes tile layer setup and configuration, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing code), output format, or behavior on missing parameters. This lack of detail hinders understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 code generation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on output format (e.g., returns a string of code) and what 'complete' entails. It covers basic functionality but could be more thorough given the absence of annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'includes tile layer setup'), but does not offer extra semantic context for parameters.

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 it generates Leaflet map initialization code with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. It specifies the resource (complete map initialization) and the verb (generate), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_marker or create_choropleth that serve different purposes.

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 use for initializing a new Leaflet map, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. Guidance on sequencing with sibling tools (e.g., adding markers after map creation) is absent.

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