plot_galactic_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the Green SNR overlay is fetched over the network and cached, which is useful. However, it does not state the return type (image vs. data), whether the call is side-effect free, or what happens with no parameters given.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key content (map of what, in what coordinates, with what overlays) appears immediately. Slightly compressed to the point of omitting needed detail, but structurally 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?

For a six-parameter, zero-required plotting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the subject matter but not the output format or the semantics of half the parameters. An agent could invoke it, but would be guessing at 'label' and 'highlight' behavior.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, but it largely does not. It implies the map content (kinds), Galactic projection, and the Green SNR and CGPS toggles, but gives no meaning for the 'label' or 'highlight' parameters, which are the least self-explanatory. Two of six parameters remain fully opaque.

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 states a specific action and resource: a map of bundled PWNe and other nebulae in Galactic coordinates, with the CGPS footprint and optional Green SNR overlay. It is distinguishable from siblings like plot_nebula_spectrum or render_cutout by being a sky-distribution plot. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cgps_coverage, render_multiwavelength, or cone_search. The only usage signal is the optional Green SNR overlay, which is more of a feature than a when-to-use rule. The agent must infer the use case.

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