get_map

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

No annotations are provided, but the description fully discloses behavioral traits: map is loaded at startup, returns snapshot on demand, only updates when tool called, map is public, resources on cells, and explains return structure and units (epoch ms vs unix seconds, decimal strings).

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 moderately long but each sentence serves a purpose. It is well-structured: opens with a clear purpose, then details behavior, scopes, and unit notes. Could be slightly more concise, but the additional detail is beneficial for an AI agent.

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 tool complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context: return structure, scope usage, defaults, and unit conversions. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but the provided information is enough for correct invocation.

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 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the dual default behavior ('mine' if wallet known, else 'summary'), the meaning of scopes, and the relationship between parameters (e.g., tokenIds required for scope 'cells', centerX/Y and radius for 'around').

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 reads the live game world and explains what it returns (snapshot of the map, summary, resourceIndex, cells as graph). It distinguishes from siblings by its scope options and the fact it returns a full map snapshot rather than a single cell or changes.

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 explains the different scopes (mine, around, cells, all, summary) and their defaults, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_cell or get_changes. It provides implicit guidance on when to use each scope, but lacks direct alternatives explanation.

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