Read WC3 map script

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 only says 'Read' but does not mention return format, size limits, error handling, or whether the operation is safe. The agent has no insight into what happens when reading the script.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, potentially including output details.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description lacks essential context such as what the tool returns (the script content) or any error conditions. It is not fully complete for an agent to use without additional assumptions.

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 100% for the single parameter 'mapPath'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 the resource (map script), and specifies the script files (war3map.j JASS or war3map.lua). It distinguishes from siblings like wc3_read_file and wc3_read_triggers by targeting the main script file.

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 vs alternatives such as wc3_read_file for general files or wc3_read_triggers for triggers. No context on prerequisites or conditions is given.

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