ro_warp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses OpenKore's route planner and that the path must exist, which hints at a failure mode. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., loading screens, state changes), whether the call blocks, or what happens on success/failure. Minimal disclosure for a movement tool with no annotation safety net.

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, tightly worded sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and adds a relevant caveat. It is appropriately concise for what it is, though it may be too terse for the context (penalized in other dimensions).

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 has four parameters, only one required, and no output schema or annotations. The description does not clarify the purpose of x/y (are they optional coordinates?), the timeout semantics, or what the caller should expect in return (e.g., success/failure indication). Given the complexity and sparse structured metadata, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool with correct parameters and expectations.

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 coverage is only 25% (only map has a description). The tool description adds nothing about x, y, or timeoutMs—it does not explain that x/y are likely target coordinates within the map or that timeoutMs controls how long to wait for arrival. The phrase 'by name' only reiterates the map parameter already described in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb (Move) and resource (another map) and specifies that it is by name. It also adds a technical detail (uses OpenKore's route planner). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ro_walk or ro_gm_warp, though 'by name' and map context make it distinct enough. Not quite a 5 because no sibling is named.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ro_walk (within-map movement) or ro_gm_warp (likely GM-specific). The only practical note is that the path must exist, which is a precondition, not a usage guideline. The agent is left to infer when this is the right choice.

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