pulse_map_get

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

The description implies a read-only retrieval and mentions the optional full-grid expansion for one screen. With no annotations, it does not disclose permissions, failure behavior, whether the operation has side effects, or what the returned map contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and optional expansion efficiently.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves app_id semantics, return content, and error conditions unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains screen_id as optionally including one screen's full grid, but it does not explain the required app_id or what constitutes a screen map.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a stored screen map.' It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as pulse_map_route or pulse_map_record_screen.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read a stored screen map' and the optional inclusion of one screen's full grid. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus pulse_map_route, pulse_map_record_screen, or other map tools.

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