N1Mm Bandmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine value by disclosing TTL eviction on spots and the single-snapshot semantics, but it never states that this is a read-only query, whether it requires a running N1MM instance, or any refresh/latency characteristics.

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 short sentences with the resource and payload front-loaded; nothing is buried. There is mild redundancy between the headline list in sentence one and the re-enumeration in sentence two, which keeps it just short of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description adequately covers what the snapshot contains for a parameterized read tool. It falls short only on the missing read-only/safety framing that would normally be supplied by annotations.

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?

All five parameters are documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema already does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description only indirectly touches parameters — 'mult targets' gestures at mults_only, 'per-band' at band — without adding format, matching semantics, or interaction rules between filters.

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 names a concrete resource (live bandmap) and enumerates its contents — active spots, unworked multipliers, per-band activity counts — so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like n1mm_multipliers or n1mm_current_state, which overlap in the multiplier/state space.

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 word 'Live' implies a real-time contesting snapshot, which hints at when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Given the sibling n1mm_multipliers covers similar multiplier territory, the absence of any disambiguation is a real gap.

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