Get sector

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and 'all fields, format-native keys' adds a useful detail about the output format. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., invalid index), prerequisites like a loaded map, or the role of the optional 'file' parameter, leaving transparency incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it captures the core operation and a key output detail efficiently.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the 'map' and 'file' parameters, lacks any usage guidance relative to siblings, and provides no error or prerequisite context, making it only minimally adequate for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The only parameter clarified is 'index' (via 'by index'), while 'map' and 'file' remain unexplained. This adds marginal value over the schema but fails to fully document the parameters, especially with three parameters present.

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 clearly states the tool returns one sector's properties by index, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('sector's properties'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_linedef and find_sectors_by_tag by emphasizing the selection method (index) and scope (one sector).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_sectors_by_tag or map_info. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests specific contexts for use, leaving the agent without enough information to select it correctly among many sibling tools.

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