omni_map_report

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

No annotations means the description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals the key behavioral trait — writing to `worlds/<map>/_dev/state/verification/` and the template mode that avoids writing — but does not disclose whether existing reports are overwritten, what the tool returns after a write, or what happens when required content is absent. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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, no waste. The core action and destination are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the critical workflow variant. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description fully covers the two modes (write vs template) and the target directory, which is the core flow. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves return behavior, overwrite semantics, and the interplay of `map` vs `mapDir`/`worldsDir` undisclosed. For a mutating 6-param tool this is a gap, though the schema covers parameter meaning.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema: the path template `worlds/<map>/_dev/state/verification/` explains how `map` is interpolated into the filesystem location, and the `template: true` example reinforces the `template` parameter's purpose. These tie schema fields to real usage meaningfully.

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 states a specific verb (Write), a specific resource (verification report), and the destination path (worlds/<map>/_dev/state/verification/), making the core function immediately clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling it differs from, though among tools like omni_devpatch_verify the report-writing role is clear enough that an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

"Every task owens one" gives clear situational context: this tool is mandatory per task, not optional. The instruction to pass `template: true` to get the blank skeleton also lays out the intended workflow (template first, then fill in). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the context is strong enough for selection.

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