get_vehicle_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well on scope (all vehicles, including undiscovered) and return contents, and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about result size limits, cost, permissions, or what happens when limit/radius truncate the map — material for a query that can return up to 1000 rows.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and scope before the sibling comparison. Every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the sibling comparison anchors it in the catalog. What remains missing are the filtering parameters (radius, limit, include_undiscovered), which matter for a tool that can otherwise return the whole map.

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 only 25% (session_id alone is documented), so the description needs to compensate and does not — radius, limit, and include_undiscovered are never explained. Worse, 'including undiscovered wrecks' reads as unconditional default behavior even though an include_undiscovered boolean exists, leaving the toggle's effect ambiguous.

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 and resource ('List every vehicle on the map') and immediately scopes it against a named sibling ('get_world_data only shows discovered/owned ones'). It goes further by enumerating the returned fields (type, state, fuel, cargo, distance to HQ), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool yields versus its neighbors.

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 parenthetical gives a real selection rule: use this tool when you need undiscovered wrecks, because get_world_data omits them. It stops short of explaining when to reach for radius, limit, or the include_undiscovered toggle versus get_vehicle_hunt, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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