insanitii_player_station_interaction_route_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool launches PIE, places the pawn, and runs through an interaction attempt, and the example hints at wait and stop behavior. But it does not disclose potential side effects of actually invoking AttemptInteract, whether PIE is left running, or what the report output contains.

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 opening sentence is a crisp purpose statement, followed by a KB pointer, a concrete call example, and a short technical rationale. It is slightly verbose in the final paragraph, but every sentence adds context about what the verification actually proves.

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 output schema likely covers return values, but the description does not compensate for the 0% parameter documentation or the lack of side-effect disclosure. For a tool that launches PIE and executes gameplay interactions, missing parameter semantics and explicit usage boundaries makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not explain any of the four parameters. It gives an example with mode, wait_seconds, and stop_after_probe, but never defines them or mentions include_dialogs. This leaves a significant gap for an agent selecting parameter values.

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 first sentence names a specific action—'Launch PIE and verify player-view interaction traces for every Day 1 task station'—so the tool's function is immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling insanitii_* reports, but the scope ('every Day 1 task station') is specific enough to be useful.

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 when to use it: to prove the first-person pawn can interact with each Day 1 station through the detector's visibility trace. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternatives (e.g., other insanitii reports), leaving the agent to infer the choice from context.

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