map_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavior. 'Summarize' implicitly signals a read-only operation, and the listed output categories give a concrete sense of what the tool exposes. It does not state side effects or failure modes, but for a non-mutating overview tool this is a minor gap.

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?

A single crisp sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then uses a colon to list specific output dimensions. There is no filler, redundant wording, or repetition of schema details.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and what the returned summary contains, despite the absence of an output schema. No critical information appears to be missing for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 100% and the single parameter, map_path, is already well described as 'Absolute path to the .map file'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and a clearly identified resource ('.map file'), then enumerates the exact set of information it returns: entity/brush counts, bounds, format, layers/groups, textures, and entity class histogram. This makes it instantly distinguishable from siblings like get_entity, compile_map, and render_preview.

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 usage context is implied: it is the go-to tool when an overview of a .map file is needed rather than a specific entity or operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some room for inference.

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