get_map_area

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds parameter details (e.g., default radius, max) but no other behavioral traits like side effects or rate limits. It is 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?

The description is extremely concise: one purpose line followed by a list of parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Excellent 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?

Given the simple tool and existence of an output schema, the description covers the input parameters well. However, it does not hint at the output structure beyond 'terrain info', leaving a minor gap for an agent to understand what exactly is returned.

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%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: 'X coordinate of center tile', 'Y coordinate', 'How many tiles out from center (default 2, max 4)'. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get terrain info for tiles around a point.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other get_* tools that target different game data.

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 usage when terrain info around a point is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling differentiation is mentioned.

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