query_map

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds specifics like failure on missing file, offline nature of ascii view, and validation behavior, adding value beyond annotations.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded with 'Read-only: inspect maps.' Each sentence serves a purpose, but the description is somewhat dense; could be slightly shorter.

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?

Given 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains each view's return format, failure cases, and even provides a cheap way to 'see' layout via ASCII. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

While schema has 100% coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining what each view returns (e.g., 'full' returns dimensions and tile data, 'validate' returns issueCount and issues). This compensates for the lack of output 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 it is a read-only tool to inspect maps, with specific verbs like 'inspect' and lists each view. It distinguishes itself from siblings like edit_map and generate_map by emphasizing read-only nature.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use for each view and mentions an alternative tool (analyze_image) for player-visible images. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but context is clear.

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