Inspect a map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned and notes that layer dumps and command decoding are optional, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, permission needs, or output size concerns for a read-only inspection tool. Adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences, front-loading the core read behavior and then the optional slice dump. No wasted words, though separating the optional behavior more clearly would slightly improve structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates returned contents. It covers the main read path and the optional dump mode, but omits any guidance on when the optional modes are preferable or how large outputs behave, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents mapId, layerDump, and includeCommands fully. The description adds only a brief restatement of the optional layer-dump behavior and does not extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (a map's structure) and enumerates the exact contents returned: dimensions, tileset, events with position, graphic, trigger, and page conditions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like inspect_cell or render_map, which focus on narrower or visual targets.

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 implies a read/inspection context but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_cell, find_events, or render_map. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, so usage is only weakly guided.

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