List placed units/items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive. For a simple list tool, the omission is minor, but ideally it would clarify there are no side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies the exact file, the fields returned, and how to use the results with other tools. No additional information is needed for effective 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?

There is only one required parameter (mapPath) with a clear schema description. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists preplaced units and items from war3mapUnits.doo, listing specific fields (index, creationNumber, type code, owner, position, facing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wc3_list_doodads and references related tools wc3_modify_unit and wc3_delete_unit.

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 explicitly tells the user to use the returned index/creationNumber with wc3_modify_unit or wc3_delete_unit, providing clear chaining guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but for a list operation, the context is clear enough.

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