Render a character-grid map for a zone

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: painting rules, priority overwrite, resolution derivation, specifics about sheet frames and roof stamps, and that roof stamps use glyph R even when type-specific details are unsupported.

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 with information and front-loaded with the main purpose and default scenario. Each sentence adds specific value, but could be slightly more concise with paragraph breaks. No wasted sentences, but length could be trimmed.

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?

With 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers default behavior, zone options, resolution, BIM enrichment, painting rules, and usage hints. It lacks explicit description of return format (e.g., multi-line string) but 'Doom-style text map' and 'character-grid map' provide enough context for an AI agent.

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 given as 67%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: explains resolution as cell count along longer edge with aspect ratio derivation, default and max; for zone, clarifies what happens when omitted and cautions about passing at most one option; for target, adds 'Opaque sticky context' and usage rules. Compensates for lower coverage.

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 title and description clearly state the tool returns a character-grid text map for spatial orientation, specifying default zone and inputs like regionHandle, explicitBounds, or focusKind. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it's a secondary navigation aid and referencing snapshotId from archicad_capture_context.

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?

Explicit guidance: default zone is the viewport when zone is omitted; 'Prefer regionHandle when the operator names a specific sheet or cluster'; and 'This is a secondary navigation aid; inspect handles for exact geometry' which advises when to use alternatives.

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