Get sensor map

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description cooperates by disclosing that clear=true wipes the map first — the key destructive nuance the annotation alone does not convey. It also states the content is sensor-derived, not ground truth, which is important behavioral context; it stops short of describing response shape or size/pagination of the grid.

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?

One dense but front-loaded sentence: what it is, what it is not, the full legend, then contents, then the side-effect flag last. The parenthetical legend is information-dense rather than wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly — grid encoding, landmark coordinates, bumper points, pose, and stats — plus the one side effect. An agent can call this correctly without further information.

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%, so the boolean is already documented; the description nonetheless adds the consequence semantics ("wipes the map first"), which the schema's "Clear the map before returning it" only partly conveys. Nothing more is needed for a single optional flag.

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 gives a precise picture of the resource: an occupancy grid the rover built from its own sensors, with a full ASCII legend, camera landmarks, bumper hits, pose, and stats. It explicitly contrasts itself with the true layout ("not the true layout"), which implicitly separates it from list_world/get_manifest, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "not the true layout" hints that this is the choice when you want the rover's belief rather than ground truth, but no sibling (get_observation, read_sensors, list_world) is named and there are no stated when/when-not conditions.

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