get_expedition_tiles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical state dependency that only tiles already loaded in-game are returned, which materially affects results. It also implies a read-only listing via 'List'. It does not cover pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means when the map has not been opened, so it is not fully complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload via a colon list, followed by the single operational prerequisite. Every clause adds information; there is no filler.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned tile fields, plus the map-must-be-open prerequisite. The remaining gap is behavior around limit and only_scavengable, which matters for a tool returning up to 400 tiles.

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 50%: radius and session_id are documented in the schema, while limit and only_scavengable are not. The mention of 'scavengable state' hints at the only_scavengable filter but never states what it does or how limit truncates the listing, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('loaded expedition tiles') and enumerates what each tile carries: area/location type, resource icons, scavengable state, scavenge progress and collected resources. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like get_terrain_grid or get_map_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It supplies one genuinely useful precondition — 'Open the world map in-game first so tiles load' — which tells the agent when the tool will return data. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_scavenge_plan, get_resource_hotspots or get_terrain_grid, and no exclusions.

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