map_window

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 so well: it explains fog semantics, which fields appear when vis=true, what vis=false omits, and how resource details are offloaded to reference('resources'). It never explicitly states read-only status, but the query-like behavior is clear from context.

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?

The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and subsequent sentences stay focused on return semantics and alternatives. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but most sentences earn their place by documenting useful return fields and fog behavior.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is strong on output semantics but incomplete on input semantics. It explains returned data richly, yet leaves x/y/radius under-documented and mentions vis in a way that does not match the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for x, y, and radius. It only implies that x/y are a center point and radius is a distance; it does not define coordinate conventions, units, or the default radius of 3. It also references a vis parameter that does not exist in the input schema, which adds confusion.

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 states a specific scope: revealed plots within a radius of (x, y), and it distinguishes vis=true from vis=false. It also names the sibling alternative known_world for the full discovered map, so an agent can tell what this tool returns versus alternatives.

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 gives a clear routing rule: 'Prefer known_world for the full discovered map,' and explains what vis=true vs vis=false means. It lacks explicit when-not conditions beyond that single alternative, but the usage context is strong.

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