suggest_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that tiles are randomly selected and returns blue and red tiles, but doesn't cover determinism, whether results can be regenerated, or any constraints on the tile pool. Adequate but not rich for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the routing guidance follows immediately, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, its output shape (blue and red tiles), and its alternative. It could say more about randomness or result format, but it's sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter player_count is fully documented in the schema, including its default behavior. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (suggest a random map tile selection) with the resource and scope (for a given player count). It distinguishes itself from the purely analytical analyze_slices, but the connection to sibling tools is only partially clarified. The purpose is clear enough to act on.

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 routes agents away from this tool for draft-based maps, naming Milty Draft and analyze_slices as the alternatives. It gives a clear when-not condition, though it doesn't state when this quick suggestion is preferable beyond the implicit casual use case.

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