cpu_get_map

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it's a public read operation, background-synced, and that pos is a rough hint. Mentions server.reachable flag indicating action viability. Could be improved by explicitly stating no authentication required and that it's a safe read.

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?

Description is dense but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Front-loaded with purpose and includes necessary details. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and efficient.

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, description fully explains return structure (summary, resourceIndex, storage with details, timestamps, server.reachable). Addresses navigation, scope selection, and potential failure conditions. Comprehensive for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value beyond schema. Explains default scopes based on wallet presence, context for radius and aroundTokenId, and the meaning of 'around' scope. Provides behavioral context for parameters that enhances usability.

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, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('game world'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like cpu_get_cell (single cell) and cpu_get_attention (to-do list) by mentioning them in context.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use different scopes (mine, around, cells, all, summary) and provides defaults. Also explains conditions for server.reachable false and directs to cpu_get_attention for to-do list, offering clear usage context.

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