read_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what happens if the map doesn't exist, or what the output format is (e.g., JSON, raw data). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read a specific map file') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and context, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a read operation. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., map data structure, error handling) or behavioral aspects like file access requirements. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to fully understand its use.

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, clearly documenting both parameters ('map_id' and 'project_path') with examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('a specific map file from an RPG Maker MZ project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_maps' (which likely lists maps) or 'describe_asset' (which might describe map assets), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_maps' (for listing maps) or 'describe_asset' (for describing assets), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing project or map file. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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