walkable_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: default start is the largest area, floors are detected by rays so ramps/stairs/levels work, and the tool returns reachable, unreachable and blocked areas in m2 plus a top-down image. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or whether it modifies the scene, but for a geometry-analysis tool the behavioral context is largely covered.

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 front-loaded with purpose and remains tight across four sentences. Each sentence adds useful information: capability, default behavior, algorithm detail, output, and intended use. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this complexity.

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 eight undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well to explain the return values and high-level behavior. However, it leaves most parameter semantics unexplained, which is a clear gap for correct invocation. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema has eight parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only explains the `start` parameter's default behavior (flood from the largest area if omitted) and vaguely refers to 'an agent of this size,' without mapping to `agent_height`, `agent_radius`, `max_step`, `max_levels`, `max_slope_deg`, `cell`, or `names`. Most parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking where an agent of a given size can walk, then flooding from a start point. It names the return values (reachable, unreachable, blocked areas in m2 and a top-down image) and explains that floors are found by rays so ramps, stairs and multiple levels are handled. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like sightline_map, viewshed, or route.

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?

It gives clear intended use: 'Use it to prove that every room, spawn and objective connects.' That tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not guidance required for a 5.

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