read_minimap

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the parameter behavior (taking a new screenshot or reusing cached) but does not state that the tool is read-only, safe to call, or whether it requires specific game state. The description is partially transparent but omits important context.

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 concise and front-loaded with key information. It uses one sentence efficiently without wasted words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include output details without sacrificing conciseness, hence a 4.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the output format (e.g., compass bearing as degrees, list of entity types) or any prerequisites (e.g., game must be in a state where minimap is visible). This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining when to set 'fresh_screenshot' to false (to reuse cached screenshot) and that the default is true. This helps the agent understand parameter behavior effectively.

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's purpose: analyzing the minimap for compass bearing and nearby entities. It uses specific verbs ('Analyze') and resources ('minimap'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'capture_screen' or 'analyze_screen' which have broader or different scopes.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., game must be running, minimap visible) or comparison to similar tools like 'detect_layout' or 'find_npc_on_screen'. This is adequate but leaves room for confusion.

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