valorant-agents-composition-with-map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data format details. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline score is appropriate, but no additional value is provided.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations (read-only, non-destructive), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return values or how the data is structured, which could be helpful since there is no output schema. It meets basic needs but has gaps in completeness.

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 parameter 'mapId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on map IDs. Baseline score is justified as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'agent composition data for a Valorant map', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'valorant-meta-maps' or 'valorant-meta-characters', which might offer related but distinct data, so it falls short of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it differs from sibling tools like 'valorant-meta-maps' or 'valorant-meta-characters'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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