generate_map

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: coverage shape options (default 500m radius, radius param, rectangular via size_ew+size_ns), return of dataKey, and save location to Downloads. It does not cover potential errors or authentication needs, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for a map generation tool.

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 brief and well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, a bullet list for coverage shapes, and a sentence about dataKey and the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loading of purpose is effective.

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 complexity (18 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits explanations for most parameters and does not describe the output format beyond dataKey. The description covers only a fraction of what an agent needs to use the tool effectively.

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 has 18 parameters with 0% description coverage, placing a heavy burden on the tool description. The description only clarifies the semantics of radius, size_ew, and size_ns (via coverage shape explanations) and the dataKey return. Other parameters like markers, layers, route, poi_types, and color_set are left entirely unexplained, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Generate a styled map image for a given location and save it to Downloads,' which is specific and identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool redownload_map by explicitly mentioning it for reusing generated maps, aiding tool selection.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (generating a new map) and when to use redownload_map instead (to get the same map in a different color or format without waiting). However, it does not address the sibling compute_route or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, which is a minor gap.

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