get_map_area

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'get' confirms a read operation. It adds the radius constraint (default 2, max 4) but no other behavioral traits like performance or return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in one sentence, followed by a clear bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary and without waste.

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 has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers input parameters well, though it could mention radius range limits (max 4) for clarity.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: center_x and center_y as coordinates, and radius with default and maximum. This adds meaning beyond the basic schema types.

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 'Get terrain info for tiles around a point,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cities or get_strategic_map, which handle different data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_strategic_map). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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