mc_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that image format produces a top-down render that is inlined to the agent and also persisted to disk, with the default path given. It omits failure/edge behavior (unloaded chunks appear as '?' but no error semantics) and any cost/size caveats beyond token savings.

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?

Front-loaded with the default layer and the mode list, which is good, but the middle is a dense run-on packing four glyph legends with heavy bolding and mixed punctuation, which hurts scannability. The content mostly earns its place, yet the structure could be tightened into discrete mode entries.

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?

For a 13-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers the output shapes (char grid vs image vs both), defaults, and coordinate sourcing from mc_scan. Remaining gaps are minor: interaction with unloaded chunks, and no mention of how radius/scale interact with rendering cost.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the per-mode glyph legends (what '#'/'v'/'~'/'?' mean in floor vs cave vs surface modes) and the slab semantics (上下各看几格) are not derivable from the schema alone. These are exactly the semantics an agent needs to read the output.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ("看周围地形" – view surrounding terrain) and immediately specifies the default layer being rendered plus the glyph legend. It is clearly distinct from siblings like mc_scan (which supplies target coordinates) and mc_observe, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated as an explicit contrast.

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?

Gives real selection guidance: mode choices are enumerated with the condition that selects each (auto switches to cave layer underground, column for vertical profiling), and the chars-vs-image tradeoff is spelled out ("字符图省 token 且坐标精确；形状/外观问题用图像"). No explicit when-not-to-use statement, so short of a 5.

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