inspect_map

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety expectations. The description adds behavioral detail by stating it reads the selected live editor and returns entity IDs and coordinates, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction is present.

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, compact sentence with the action front-loaded ('inspect_map: read...'). It conveys the core purpose and output without any filler or redundancy, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return type. However, it omits the meaning of sessionId, how to obtain a valid session, and any detail about the coordinate format, leaving notable gaps for an agent to call it correctly in context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the sessionId parameter at all. The name suggests it identifies an editor session, but the agent must infer this without explicit guidance, and the description does not compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('read the selected live editor') and resource, and specifies the output (entity IDs and world-unit coordinates). It is distinct from editing tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like get_editor_state or capture_view, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrasing implies this tool is used for reading/inspecting the live editor, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like how to identify the editor session.

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