get_map_region

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the output format (2D array with row/column order), the default layer, and that it throws if the rectangle is out of bounds. It could add more about error behavior or performance limits, but the essential behaviors are covered.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/alternative, return format, and constraints/defaults. It is front-loaded and 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return structure. It covers the main edge cases (bounds, layer default) and provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Given moderate complexity, the description is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the layer default, referencing set_map_tile for layer meanings, and highlighting the boundary constraint, which supplements the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 the tool reads raw tile ids in a rectangular window of one map layer, and explicitly differentiates it from get_map as a token-cheap alternative. The verb 'read' and resource specification make the purpose 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?

It explicitly names get_map as the alternative and specifies when to use this tool ('inspecting part of a painted map'). It also gives a key usage constraint (must lie within bounds) and refers to set_map_tile for layer meanings, providing clear context for selection.

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