get_unexplored_tiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves unexplored tiles but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: the first clause states the core purpose, and the second adds contextual meaning ('gaps in your solution space exploration'). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving unexplored tiles), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but misses key contextual details like behavioral traits, return format, or how it fits with siblings. It's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but leaves gaps in practical usage.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'treeId' documented as 'Optional tree ID to filter by'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying what a 'tree' represents in this context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get tiles that haven't been split yet' specifies the action (get) and target resource (unexplored tiles). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tile' (specific tile) or 'get_leaf_tiles' (already split tiles) by focusing on unexplored gaps. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 implies usage context ('gaps in your solution space exploration'), suggesting this tool is for identifying unexplored areas during exploration. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'search_tiles' or 'get_leaf_tiles', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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