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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return format (one line per entity with a fixed field order) plus the default room behavior — genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about result limits, truncation, ordering, or whether visibility/permissions restrict what is returned, which matters for a spatial query with a radius up to 500.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose in two words, which is good. The remainder is compressed into telegraphic shorthand ("id prim preset at x,y,z by author parent=") that takes effort to parse and could be stated plainly in a few more words without bloat.

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 five-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the parameter meanings and the returned line format, which is the essential core. It still leaves gaps around result volume, ordering, and failure behavior for invalid rooms or ids, which an agent would need before calling it confidently.

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 explain all five parameters, and it largely does: room (with the current-room default), near as an [x,y,z] point combined with r as a radius, id for a single entity, and author as an agent id. What it omits are units and bounds (r's 0–500 range, id/author pattern formats) which the schema already enforces.

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?

"See a room" names a specific verb and resource, and the following clause specifies the exact shape of each returned line (id, prim, preset, coordinates, author, parent). It is distinguishable as a read/inspection tool, though it never names a sibling such as world_room or world_rooms to disambiguate.

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 through its filter list — omit filters for the current room, pass room for another room, near+r for a radius, id for one entity, author for an agent's entities — and it states the default explicitly. It gives no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools that cover related lookups.

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