generate_map_v3

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses automatic event generation (NPCs, chests, bosses, transfers) and return values (mapId, seed). It does not mention permissions, side effects, or limitations, but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core function with algorithms, second lists themes and mentions events/returns. No filler, front-loaded with key action. Every sentence is essential.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers generation algorithms, themes, automatic events, and return values. Lacks info on overwriting behavior or specific seed effects, but schema partly covers seed. Adequate for most use cases.

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?

All 9 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds return info (mapId, seed) and lists themes, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Generate a new map using the V3 procedural generator' and lists the algorithms (Perlin noise, BSP dungeon, cellular automata caves) and 21 themes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_map (manual) and generate_map_batch (batch) by specifying it's the V3 generator.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create_map or generate_map_batch. The description lacks context for selection, e.g., 'Use this for procedurally generated maps; for batch generation use generate_map_batch.'

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