Glyphs Facing Direction

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core action but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, side effects, what happens if no glyphs face the direction, or return format. This is minimal transparency.

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 sentence of 7 words, extremely concise with no wasted text. However, it lacks additional context that could be included without much verbosity, so not a perfect score.

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 simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'facing' means, what is returned (e.g., list of glyph IDs), or behavior in edge cases (e.g., no matching glyphs). More context is needed for completeness.

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% with the single parameter 'direction' described as 'The direction to check' with enum values. The description adds 'currently facing', implying temporal context, which adds slight meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get all glyphs currently facing a given direction', using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'glyphs facing a given direction'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tower_get_glyphs (all glyphs) and tower_get_glyph (single glyph) by adding the direction filter.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tower_get_glyphs or tower_get_glyph. The usage is implied by the description (to get glyphs filtered by direction), but no exclusions or when-not-to-use advice are given.

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