rails_get_turbo_map

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

Read-only, idempotent and non-destructive are already covered by annotations, so the description's job is to say what analysis is produced — it does, listing broadcasts, subscriptions, frame tags and DOM target mismatches as outputs. It also implicitly signals the default detail level via the schema, though it never states output size or cost at 'full' detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the when-to-use triggers. The final filter sentence largely duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the four artifact classes the map contains and the three detail levels via the schema. For a zero-required-param read-only analysis tool this is close to sufficient; only the shape of a 'mismatch' finding is left undefined.

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 all three params are already documented with examples in the schema. The description's closing sentence re-uses those same examples (stream:"notifications", controller:"messages") without adding behavior the schema lacks — e.g. how filters combine or what happens when both are given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: mapping Turbo Streams and Frames, enumerating the four things it surfaces (model broadcasts, channel subscriptions, frame tags, DOM target mismatches). No sibling tool covers Turbo, so an agent can confidently route here rather than to rails_get_stimulus or rails_get_view.

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 'Use when:' clause names three concrete scenarios — debugging stream delivery, adding real-time updates, understanding broadcast→subscription wiring — and follows with filter guidance keyed to each param. It does not name a wrong-tool alternative or exclusion, which keeps it below a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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