kotor_walkmesh_validation_diagram

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is 'Read-only; returns plain text (no ANSI).' This informs the agent that no modifications occur and output format is plain text, which is sufficient for a read-only analysis tool.

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 two sentences: the first defines purpose and output, the second provides usage context and behavioral info. Every sentence adds value, and critical information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (text diagram with specific elements), and when to use it. The return format is specified as plain text, which is sufficient for agents to understand the output.

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%, with all three parameters described in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the default for use_color. Thus a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a text validation diagram for a walkmesh (BWM/WOK), listing specific components (perimeter, transitions, outer boundary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are other resource query tools, by its unique focus on walkmesh validation.

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 includes explicit usage context: 'Use when you need to understand an area's walkable layout, door links, or boundary for modding or debugging.' It implies the tool is for analysis, not modification, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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