map_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned categories plus a non-obvious data trait: a camp with a city-state kill-camp quest carries `cs_quest`, visible only if the CS is met. It stops short of stating that the operation is a pure read with no side effects, but 'scan' plus the return-field detail covers most of what an agent needs.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the scope of the scan, followed by the one caveat field and then the sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with 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, so the description must describe the return surface, and it enumerates the returned categories and the conditional `cs_quest` field. Combined with the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything required to select and call this tool correctly.

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 nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema already shows; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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+resource (compact map scan) and enumerates exactly what is returned: revealed luxuries/strategics, barb camps, ruins, met foreign cities, natural wonders, in-sight world wonders. It also names the sibling it supersedes (known_world), so an agent can differentiate it without inspecting either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer this over known_world unless you need every plot' gives both the preferred tool and the condition under which the alternative is warranted. That is a complete when-to-use / when-to-use-alternative statement.

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