Get heatmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the data source and the exact return shape, which is helpful, but it does not explain aggregation window, grid contents, or behavior for missing/unknown games. It is transparent but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior and data source, and the second gives the return contract. Everything present is useful and front-loaded.

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?

The return shape is fully specified even without an output schema, which is valuable. However, there is no guidance on temporal scope, default environment, or how `grid` values are represented, and the sibling context does not help an agent decide when exactly to call this tool. It is adequate for a straightforward data retrieval but leaves some operational ambiguity.

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 schema already describes `game` and `build` well, covering 67% of parameters, and the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The undocumented `env` parameter remains unexplained, so the description does not compensate for that gap, though the schema coverage keeps this at the baseline.

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 ('Return') and a precise resource ('per-room player-position density grids for a game'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools by naming the source telemetry events (`player_pos`). This is immediately clear and differentiated.

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 implies the tool is used when per-room player-position heatmap data is needed and that it is scoped to a game, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like get_event_stats or get_game_summary. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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