Whole-map overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavior. It describes the tool as a read-only snapshot, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify the map or any requirements (e.g., map must exist). The description gives a good sense of output but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence efficiently lists the output categories in a structured manner, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Minor improvement could be formatting with line breaks for readability, but it's largely effective.

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 purpose as a high-level overview and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing ten distinct categories of information. This coverage allows an agent to understand the tool's scope and decide if it fits the context. It complements the more granular sibling tools.

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 provides complete documentation for the single parameter (mapPath) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for a well-documented parameter. No further explanation is needed.

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 tool name and description immediately convey it provides a comprehensive map overview. The phrase 'One-call snapshot' and the detailed list of included data (info, file count, script language, terrain, placements, custom objects, regions, cameras, sounds, triggers) clearly define the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects or modifications.

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 explicit instruction 'Use this first to orient on an unfamiliar map' provides clear guidance on when to use this tool. It implies that more specific tools should follow this initial overview, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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