mat_get_map_slot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description matches that read-only behavior. It adds the useful detail that the result is the map class and bitmap path, but does not address edge cases like empty slots or invalid material names.

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 description is compact and front-loaded, with the action in the first clause and output details immediately after. The bilingual repetition is acceptable but slightly 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 simple read-only getter with two fully described parameters, the description is adequate: it names the inputs and the expected output. It doesn't specify exact return formatting or failure behavior, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and readOnlyHint.

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%, with both slot and material already explained in Chinese/English. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the operation ('read the map on a named slot') and the returned data (class and bitmap path), so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling getters like mat_get or mat_set_map_slot, so it loses the top point.

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?

There is no statement about when to prefer this tool over related material/map tools; no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The read-vs-write contrast with mat_set_map_slot is left entirely to the name and action verb.

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