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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that this is private, non-broadcast, which is not directly in annotations (openWorldHint=false is nearby but not explicit privacy). It aligns with read-only behavior. It doesn't contradict, but adds limited extra behavior details—e.g., it doesn't specify return format or limitations, though there are none side effects.

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?

Two sentences—concise and front-loaded with the core idea ('private stall'). The phrasing 'Step into the restroom' is engaging but slightly poetic; the second sentence lists categories efficiently. Minimal waste, though the metaphor could obscure clarity for some agents. Overall well-structured.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what is returned. It says 'Shows what you can tidy'—likely a list of actionable items—but not precise about format or scope. Given the many sibling tools for inventory (inventory, pocket, list_skills, list_looks), the description could better clarify how this differs and what exact data is presented. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and none are needed. No further compensation required.

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 states a clear purpose: a private view of one's own state, listing specific categories (pocket items, effects, skills/looks, style). It explicitly notes 'nothing broadcast, only your own state,' which differentiates it from broadcasting tools like 'say' or 'offer_kiss'. The verb 'Shows' and the resource 'your own state' are specific and distinguishable.

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 for private self-inspection (e.g., 'nothing broadcast, only your own state') and mentions 'what you can tidy,' suggesting a preparatory step for actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'inventory', 'pocket', or 'whoami', nor states conditions for when this tool is preferred over them. The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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