Storm Map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavior: it does not explain the effect of refresh, whether results are cached, how matches are ranked, or what happens when a mapping fails. The phrase 'across builds' hints at scope but nothing more.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally tight. However, the terseness tips into under-specification, and the mixed method/argument list reads as a fragment rather than a purposeful statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with four undocumented parameters and a cryptic two-part purpose, the description omits the build-pairing semantics and refresh behavior an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails it. It mentions 'name and RVA,' but RVA is not even a parameter, while the required name and the optional to_build, from_build, and refresh are left entirely unexplained.

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 verb 'Map' plus resource 'symbol across builds' gives a rough sense of the operation (locating a symbol's counterpart in another build), but the trailing 'via direct BSim, Trilogy-mediated, name and RVA' is method jargon that muddies rather than clarifies purpose. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like storm_resolve or storm_symbolize, so an agent cannot confidently tell them apart.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer storm_resolve/storm_symbolize instead, or what prerequisites (e.g., two build IDs) are needed. The only hint is the implicit 'across builds' scope, which is not framed as guidance.

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