cpu_get_map

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers read-only nature ('public, background-synced'), world structure (48,990 cells, no coordinates), caveats ('pos is only a rough hint'), return contents, and failure signal ('server.reachable false means actions will fail'). This is exceptionally transparent for a read tool.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into necessary domain details. While it is a single long paragraph, it avoids redundancy and every clause adds value about the world, returns, or scopes. Minor structure improvements (bullets) would earn a 5.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return structure (summary, resourceIndex, storage) and their semantics, provides navigation guidance, and warns about `server.reachable`. Combined with the schema's full parameter coverage, this gives agents a complete and actionable picture for a complex 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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions (scope enum, radius bounds, tokenIds requirement, aroundTokenId role). The description's scope list mostly restates schema info without adding new parameter-level meaning or clarifying dependencies beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Read the live game world.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by detailing the world model (finite sphere, tokenId keys, navigation via neighbors) and the available scopes, making it unambiguous that this is the broad world-reader tool.

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 context for when to use the tool ('Read the live game world') and implicitly contrasts with navigation via `cpu_next_hops` and action-related to-dos via `cpu_get_attention`. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like `cpu_get_cell`, so some inference is required.

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