run_map_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without discussing side effects, whether the operation is safe/read-only, expected runtime, or where validation results are surfaced. The existence of a get_test_results sibling hints results are hosted elsewhere, but the description never mentions this.

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 with no filler words; every token contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could still add value (e.g., result location) without becoming verbose.

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?

For a simple tool (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate in stating the action but fails to explain what a successful run produces, how to interpret results, whether the level is modified, or how this validation complements the get_test_results workflow. Given the absence of structured metadata, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond the schema. Per the rubric, the 0-param case warrants a baseline score of 4, and the description correctly adds no redundant parameter information.

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+resource+scope ('Run Map Check validation on the current level'), clearly stating what it does and where it applies. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like validate_assets (asset-level) and run_gauntlet (automation suites) by naming a unique level-scoped validation, though it does not explicitly call out those distinctions.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a level open), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings such as validate_assets, get_test_results, or the run_automation_test tools.

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