where_is_my_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does very little with it. It implies a read operation but never confirms read-only safety, says nothing about output size, whether full file contents are returned versus just metadata, or any permission requirements. For a discovery tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves the agent guessing about side effects and payload.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the locational purpose and adds the 'what each holds' clause. It earns its place with no filler, though the terseness comes at the cost of specificity rather than from genuine efficiency gains. Slight under-specification, not verbosity, is the issue.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description should at least sketch the shape of the answer. It promises locations and contents but does not say whether the response is a list, a map, or full file bodies, nor how large it may be. Adequate for a trivial tool, but it leaves the return contract underspecified.

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, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty schema.

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 pairs a locational verb with a resource ('Where the human's BecomeHuman files are and what each holds'), so it is more than a restatement of the tool name. However, 'BecomeHuman files' is undefined domain jargon, and it never states whether this is a read-only inventory or something else. An agent knows roughly that it returns file locations plus contents, but not what the data actually represents.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to call this before or instead of siblings like get_profile, get_map, or remember. The only implied usage is 'find out where data lives', which the name already conveys. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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