map_validate

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose ('validate map safety and geometry') but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, or any permission or rate limit requirements.

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 at two sentences but omits crucial details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the brief description fails to cover validation behavior, input constraints, or result format, leaving significant gaps for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the five parameters (rootPath, maxObjects, strictGeometry, terrainClearance, maxOverlapWarnings), leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.

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 validates map safety and geometry, and explicitly distinguishes it from a final visual readiness check, differentiating from sibling tool map_readiness_check.

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 implies usage during map development after generation but before final check, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, nor mentions alternatives.

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