Read terrain summary

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

The name and description indicate a read-only operation ('read', 'summarize'), so no destructive hint needed. No annotations exist, but the description effectively communicates safety. Could add detail on permissions or map path requirements, but not critical.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with 'summarize', no wasted words. Each element listed is essential for understanding output.

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?

Lists specific output attributes, which is adequate for a summarization tool without an output schema. Could mention that the map file must be valid, but the required parameter implies that.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (mapPath). The description does not add further parameter detail, but the baseline is appropriate since the schema already documents it.

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 it summarizes the war3map.w3e terrain file and lists specific attributes (tileset, ground/cliff tileset list, tilepoint dimensions, world size, height/water ranges). This distinguishes it from sibling read tools that target other files.

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 implies it should be used for reading terrain data, and sibling tools cover other resources (cameras, regions, etc.), providing clear context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, but the context is sufficient for differentiation.

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