omni_map_filemap

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the source of truth ('real folder contents'), what files are included, that unparseable batches are flagged, and that world data files are marked off-limits. It does not explicitly say the existing FILE_MAP.md is overwritten or require permissions, but 'Regenerate' strongly implies replacing the file.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by the output contents and a clear trigger. Every clause contributes useful information, though the long enumeration makes it slightly harder to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: what gets regenerated, what data is included, which files are marked off-limits, and when to run the tool. It does not describe the tool's return value or errors, but the purpose is essentially to rewrite a file, so the outcome is clear enough for selection and invocation.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description references 'a map' generically but does not add extra meaning about map vs mapDir vs worldsDir precedence or the agent parameter beyond what the schema already documents. This is acceptable because the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Regenerate FILE_MAP.md'. It then enumerates the exact contents that will be regenerated, including files under _dev/ with owner/size/mtime, world data marked off-limits, batches with op counts, verification reports, and sibling mod-staging folders. This clearly distinguishes it from map_status and map_overview, which are likely read-only reporting tools.

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 description explicitly states when to run the tool: 'after creating, renaming or deleting ANY file in the map.' This is strong usage guidance for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but no sibling directly performs the same regeneration task.

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