Map Switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a useful side effect: switching broadcasts a WebSocket map.changed event. However, it does not disclose whether the switch is persistent, whether permissions are required, or what happens if map_id is invalid.

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 a single short sentence with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the parenthetical broadcast side effect is efficiently appended. For a 1-parameter tool this is appropriately sized.

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?

The description is minimally viable: it states the action and the side-effect event, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. But it omits the source of map_id, error behavior, and any prerequisites, leaving the agent to assume details.

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 needed to explain map_id, but it never mentions the parameter or its format/source. The parameter name and the verb '切当前图' make the general role of map_id inferable, but no real semantic detail is added beyond the bare string type.

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 uses a specific verb '切' (switch) and resource '当前图' (current map), clearly stating the tool changes the active map. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like map_list, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need to change the current map, passing a map_id. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that map_list should be used to obtain a valid map_id.

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