inspect_map_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'stable OSM IDs' and 'small bbox' constraints, but it does not disclose bbox format, element limits, or how results are returned beyond GeoJSON.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is immediately visible. However, it is so terse that some important invocation details are missing, keeping it from a top score.

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 output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere, and annotations cover safety behavior. Still, with zero schema param coverage, no bbox format detail, no explanation of highway_only or max_elements, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only mentions 'bbox' vaguely as a small bbox. It does not explain the required bbox format (e.g., coordinate order or syntax), and highway_only and max_elements are entirely omitted from the narrative, leaving the agent without needed semantic meaning.

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 a specific action and resource: it returns stable OSM IDs, versions, tags, and GeoJSON for a small bbox. This is more specific than sibling tools like get_osm_elements_in_area or get_osm_node, though it does not explicitly name and differentiate itself from them.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_osm_elements_in_area or search_osm_elements. The phrase 'small bbox' implies a scale limitation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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