Show a visual mind map

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering safety. The description adds context about the inline visual output but does not elaborate on side effects, return format, or other behavioral aspects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the modest additional context warrants a 3.

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 two sentences that are direct and purposeful. The first sentence states the action and output, the second provides usage guidance. No superfluous words or unnecessary details.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only operation, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from a sibling tool. No missing information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema fully covers the single parameter 'id' with the description 'The map id, from list_maps'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 that the tool renders a mind map as an interactive visual diagram inline, contrasting with plain text. It also distinguishes it from get_map, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides selection criteria: 'Use this when the user asks to see, view, or visualize a map — get_map is better when you just need to read or reason about its contents.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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