run_map_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation, but fails to mention whether it produces results, modifies the level, or has side effects. A single sentence does not convey enough behavioral detail for an agent to anticipate outcomes.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description leaves major gaps: it does not explain what 'Map Check' entails, what kind of results or errors to expect, or how the outcome is delivered. For an AI agent, this is insufficient to fully understand the tool's behavior and integration.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not contradict or miss anything relevant.

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 a specific action ('Run') on a specific resource ('Map Check validation') with clear scope ('the current level'). This distinguishes it from sibling validation tools like validate_assets or validate_data, which target other resources.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextualizing typical usage scenarios or comparing to validation tools for assets/data.

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