plan_map_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that planning does not move the character, which is a key side-effect, but it does not describe other potential effects such as whether the plan is stored, returned, or modifies game state. For a planning tool, this is a significant gap, but the description at least highlights the most important non-effect.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a crucial behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff. It is optimally structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, simple action) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and its key side-effect. It lacks explicit context on prerequisites or when to use it, but the usage guidelines dimension already touches on that. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The input schema is empty, with zero parameters. Schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with 0 parameters, and the description does not introduce any confusion.

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 a specific verb 'plan' and a specific resource: 'a full Ironclad route to the boss'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that planning does not move the character, which sets it apart from movement-oriented tools like step_once or execute_proposal. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear contextual hint by stating that planning does not move the character, implying that this tool is for planning only and not for actual movement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not conditions. The exclusion of movement is implied but not fully explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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