redownload_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is 'instant, no regeneration', which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention return format, failure behavior for invalid data_key, or any side effects. Some value is added, but significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 sentence plus an example, with no fluff. The key action and differentiator are front-loaded, and the example earns its place by demonstrating real usage.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and parameter usage adequately. It implies the prerequisite (a prior generate_* call's data_key) through the example and schema. Missing an explicit statement of what the tool returns, but this is minor given the straightforward 'download' intent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking the two optional parameters to the core purpose ('color theme or format') and providing a concrete example with data_key and color_set, which clarifies how they are used together.

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 precise verb ('Re-download') and resource ('a prior map'), and specifies exactly what varies: 'color theme or format'. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling generate_* tools, which create new maps, and check_map_status, which inspects progress.

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 phrase 'prior map' and the example using a data_key from a previous generate_* call make it clear this is for already-generated maps, not new generation. The 'no regeneration' note implies a lighter-weight alternative to regenerating. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of generate_* when you have a data_key', leaving that inference to the agent.

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