validate_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, with no contradiction. The description adds context that the operation targets the selected live editor and yields entity IDs/coordinates, but it does not disclose limits, error cases, or how 'selected' is established.

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 short, direct, and front-loads the primary action before the return-value detail. The second sentence is slightly awkward ('Inspect returns' is not a clear subject), but it wastes no words.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain what sessionId refers to and what 'validate' means (e.g., expected result or criteria). It gives partial return information but misses the only parameter's semantics, so it is not sufficient for correct 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 0%, so the description should clarify the required sessionId parameter. It only refers to 'the selected live editor' without explaining that sessionId identifies that editor or how the session relates to the returned data, leaving the agent to infer the mapping.

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 says validate_map reads the selected live editor and returns entity IDs and world-unit coordinates, so the verb, resource, and return content are identifiable. It does not distinguish itself from sibling inspect_map, which likely has a similar inspection role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use validate_map rather than get_editor_state, inspect_map, or the editing tools. The description only implies reading the editor; it never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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