get_map_design_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is a retrieval ('Return the guide') and specifies what the guide covers. While it doesn't explicitly say it's read-only or describe the return format, the nature of returning a document is clear enough. A score of 4 reflects adequate transparency without explicit side-effect disclosure.

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 packs in the tool's purpose, the specific file name, and a list of key contents. It is front-loaded ('Return the level/map design guide') and every clause earns its place. No wasted 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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, and the description fully enumerates the guide's contents. Given its simplicity, there is nothing missing. The description completely contextualizes when and why to use it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the returned content, which is more than necessary. The schema has no properties, so there is no gap to compensate for.

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 returns a specific resource (MAP-DESIGN.md) and enumerates its contents: layer roles, tile priority, passability, multi-tile-object rule, composition principles, and authoring workflow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_map or get_map_tiles which operate on actual map data.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Load this before authoring or editing maps', providing a clear when-to-use directive. There are no alternative tools for retrieving the design guide, so no exclusions are needed. This is direct, practical usage guidance.

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