ro_gm_warp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the permission requirement and the key behavioral difference from ro_warp (no route needed). It does not cover side effects like destination defaults or behavior when coordinates are omitted, but for a teleport command, the essentials are present. It is transparent about the privileged nature and the lack of path requirement, which is sufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the most critical fact (permission). The differentiator is placed second, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 tool is a simple teleport, but it has 4 parameters (only 1 required) and no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and the difference from ro_warp, but fails to explain the optional parameters (x, y, timeoutMs) which are likely important for precise teleporting. Given the low schema coverage, this is a notable omission. The description is complete enough for a basic call but not for a full correct invocation if coordinates or timeouts are needed.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only implicitly covers 'map' (the destination), but does not mention 'x', 'y', or 'timeoutMs'. A user would not know that coordinates can be specified or what timeoutMs does. This is a significant gap since the schema itself has no descriptions. The description adds some meaning to the map parameter but fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Teleport' and the resource 'map', and names the specific GM command '@warp'. It also contrasts with the sibling ro_warp, making it unambiguous which tool is which. This is a strong, specific purpose statement that distinguishes it from other tools.

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 guidance by contrasting with ro_warp: 'Unlike ro_warp this needs no walkable route, which matters because some maps (the tutorial grounds, instances) have no path out.' It also mentions the permission requirement (GM group with @warp permission), which is a clear prerequisite. This fully covers usage context and alternative selection.

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