generate_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It covers side effects (saves to Downloads), return behavior (dataKey in text result), asynchronous behavior (may return dataKey and ask to check status later), and the consequence of calling again (redundant duplicate job). This is substantial and goes beyond a simple operation description.

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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points for the coverage shape and short paragraphs for the async behavior. Every sentence delivers useful information—no fluff or repetition. It is about 100 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and easily scannable.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a strong overview of the tool's operation, including coverage semantics, return value (dataKey), and async flow. It does not explain all parameters, but the essential flow and usage are clear. The description is complete enough for core use cases, though advanced parameters remain undocumented.

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 description compensates for the 0% top-level schema coverage by explaining the coverage shape parameters (default, radius, size_ew + size_ns). However, it does not clarify many other parameters (format, layers, markers, color_set, canvas_width/height). It adds value for the core geometric parameters but leaves significant gaps for the rest.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate a styled map image for a given location and save it to Downloads.' It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('styled map image'), and differentiates from sibling tools by describing the generation step, coverage options, and the alternative redownload_map for changing colors/format without regeneration.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It names alternatives: 'Use redownload_map(dataKey=...) to get the same map in a different color or format' and 'call check_map_status(dataKey=...) after a delay instead of returning the image directly — do not call generate_map again for the same location in that case.' This clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings and prevents redundant duplicate jobs.

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