Map Ending Space

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 says nothing about whether this is a read or mutation operation, what side effects occur, what permissions are required, or what the result represents.

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 extremely short, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure or front-loaded information to help an agent understand the tool's purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and a complex domain of sibling tools around endings and branching, the description is far too incomplete. It leaves the agent unable to determine what the tool does or how to invoke it correctly.

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 one parameter, project_id, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides no meaning for the parameter or its expected format.

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 '映射结局空间与空洞' essentially restates the tool name and title, adding only an unclear notion of '空洞' (holes/void). It does not explain what mapping an ending space entails or how it differs from siblings like compare_endings or register_ending_axis.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what preconditions must be met, or which alternatives are appropriate. The description provides no context about its role in the larger ending/validation workflow.

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