map_get_extent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the return behavior (extent in default or specified CRS) and the optional parameter effect. It does not mention edge cases like empty canvas, but that is acceptable for a simple getter.

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 sentences, first sentence states the core purpose, second adds parameter detail. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and highly efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately focuses on input and behavior. It covers the essential information for a simple getter tool.

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 schema has 0% coverage, but the description adds meaning to the crs parameter: 'pass `crs` to get it expressed in a different CRS instead.' This clarifies its purpose beyond the schema type definition.

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 'Get the map canvas's current extent', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like map_zoom_to_extent (which sets extent) by being a read-only getter.

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 explains how to use the optional crs parameter to get the extent in a different CRS, implying the default behavior (canvas CRS). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes it clear.

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