valorant-meta-maps

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

The description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations clearly indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description doesn't elaborate on what 'meta data' includes, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential information about the tool's function and lacks any structure that would help an AI agent understand what the tool actually does.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'meta data' encompasses, what format the response takes, or what specific information about Valorant maps is provided. The annotations cover safety aspects, but the description fails to address the core informational purpose of the tool.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the empty schema already indicates.

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 'Valorant map meta data' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'valorant-meta-maps' without specifying what action the tool performs. It doesn't indicate whether this tool retrieves, analyzes, or provides metadata about Valorant maps, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'valorant-meta-characters' or 'valorant-agents-composition-with-map'.

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. There are multiple Valorant-related sibling tools (e.g., 'valorant-meta-characters', 'valorant-player-match-history'), but the description offers no context about when this specific map metadata tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other Valorant tools.

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