visualizer-map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool opens an interactive browser-based visualization at localhost:6505, which is a key effect. However, it does not mention whether it is read-only, destructive, requires internet, or has performance implications from crawling the entire project.

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 only two sentences and front-loaded with the core action. The phrase '[compact alias of map_project]' is somewhat extraneous but does not detract significantly. Overall it is efficient and clear, earning a 4.

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 no output schema, the description adequately states the output is an interactive browser-based visualization. However, it does not cover error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., Godot project must exist), or what happens if the server port is busy. This leaves some gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The baseline 3 applies; the description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify the difference between projectPath and root or the effect of include_addons.

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 it crawls a Godot project and builds an interactive visual map showing script structure, connections, and descriptions. The verb 'crawl' and noun 'visual map' are specific and distinct from sibling tools, which include project-info, resource-dependencies, and others that don't create visualizations.

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 notes it is a 'compact alias of map_project' hinting at an alternative, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, when not to use, or context for selecting this tool over sibling tools like scene-create or script-info.

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