get_map_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload contents (bounds, tile size, city name), which implies a read-only informational call, but it says nothing about failure behavior when no game is running, freshness of the data, or the shape of the returned values.

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?

A single short sentence with the key returned fields front-loaded and no filler wording. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema metadata tool, listing the three returned fields effectively serves as the return description, which is most of what an agent needs. Only the error/precondition case (game not running) is left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 verb ('get') and enumerates exactly what the resource is: map bounds, tile size, and city name. That is concrete enough to separate it from siblings like get_terrain_grid or get_map_buildings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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: 'from the running game' hints that a game session must exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative for related map data (terrain grid, buildings). For a zero-parameter getter the intent is fairly self-evident, which keeps this above a 2.

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