compile_shogo_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the .map -> .ed -> .dat pipeline and warns that reported light map nodes determine whether the world renders black, which is valuable behavior beyond a generic 'compile' statement. It does defer to 'documented traps' rather than spelling them out, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four sentences, with the core purpose and differentiating toolchain named up front. Every sentence carries information, though the vague 'documented traps' phrase is slightly less crisp than the rest.

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 7-parameter compiler with no output schema and no annotations, it gives the pipeline and one critical output interpretation, but it omits failure modes, exact report contents, and operational prerequisites. The schema covers parameter semantics well, but broader context is only adequate.

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 schema already explains all seven parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Compile') and resource ('.map for Shogo: Mobile Armor Division'), and explicitly names what it produces. It also distinguishes itself from compile_map by naming the different toolchain and pipeline, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly names compile_map as the alternative and says the two are not interchangeable, giving a clear condition for choosing this tool. The Shogo-specific pipeline and mapping kit reference further frame when this tool is appropriate.

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