get_strategic_map

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, consistent with the 'get' verb. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it shows explored territory extent per city, highlights directions needing exploration, and lists unclaimed luxury/strategic resources. No contradictions.

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?

Two succinct sentences with clear structure. First sentence states the main action, second elaborates on specifics. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is wholly adequate. It fully explains the tool's purpose and output without needing additional details.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds meaning by explaining what the output contains (boundaries, directions, unclaimed resources), going beyond the empty schema.

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 specific actions: showing fog-of-war boundaries and unclaimed resources. It uses precise language ('get', 'shows', 'highlights', 'lists') and differentiates from sibling tools like get_map_area or get_empire_resources.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is given, the context of 'get_strategic_map' and the description make its purpose obvious for map overview. The sibling list contains many get_ tools, but this one's unique focus on fog-of-war and unclaimed resources provides implicit guidance.

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