load_static_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is destructive ('Replace') and that it does not create actors, which is useful. However, it does not mention other side effects, reversibility, or requirements, leaving gaps about the operation's impact on the world.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a key caveat in ten words. Every word is informative, with no redundancy.

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?

The operation is fairly simple and an output schema exists, but with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about when the world must be initialized and how the replacement interacts with existing actors, making it barely adequate for reliable tool selection.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters. It only hints that 'colors' maps to the color layer and 'blocked' to the collision layer, but does not clarify the data structures (nested arrays, value domains) or how the parameters relate. This leaves the agent without enough information to construct valid inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and identifies the resource ('static color and collision layers'), and explicitly distinguishes this tool from actor creation by stating 'without creating actors', which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_actor.

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 provides minimal usage guidance: it implies this tool is for map/layer replacement rather than actor creation, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., a world must exist). The context is somewhat implied by the phrase 'without creating actors'.

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