Get linedef

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait (sidedef resolution), but omits any error behavior, side effects, or dependencies beyond a simple getter. The single sentence provides the minimum viable transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a meaningful qualifier about sidedefs. No wasted words or redundant structure.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape more fully and clarify all parameters. It mentions the resolved sidedefs but does not describe the exact return structure, the meaning of 'map' versus 'file', or any edge cases. For a tool with three parameters, this is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'index' parameter ('by index'), leaving 'map' and 'file' unexplained. The optional 'file' parameter is particularly underspecified, meaning the description adds little over the bare schema.

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' with a direct resource 'one linedef by index', and adds the distinguishing detail that referenced sidedefs are resolved with textures and offsets. This clearly differentiates it from sibling getters like get_sector or find_sectors_by_tag.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply describes the action without contextual guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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