Read WC3 object data

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format as '{ original, custom } modification table', which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), error conditions, or any required permissions. For a read operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the 'kind' parameter and return format. No extraneous information, and the structure is 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data is read and the return structure. Missing are details like supported file formats (though schema mentions .w3x/.w3m) and whether the operation is safe for simultaneous access. Overall, it is sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the enum values for 'kind' but provides no additional context for 'mapPath' (e.g., file existence requirements). The description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 'Read an object-data table as JSON', specifying the verb and resource. It also enumerates the valid values for the 'kind' parameter (units/items/abilities/buffs/destructables/doodads/upgrades), making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like wc3_read_placements.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. While the purpose is clear, it does not mention situations where this tool should not be used or contrast it with similar reading tools like wc3_read_script or wc3_read_terrain.

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