spatial_describe_actor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what will be described but does not state return format, whether the operation is read-only, side effects, or how the nearby/neighbor query behaves. For a tool with no annotation safety profile, this is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the core purpose, followed by a KB reference and a concrete example. It is efficient and well-ordered, though the example is somewhat redundant with the required parameter already named. No wasted sentences, but the thinness limits a higher 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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is under-specified for an agent. With 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, an agent cannot reliably determine what nearby_limit and nearby_radius do or how the neighbor query is scoped. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of coverage.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It does not. The parameters nearby_limit, nearby_radius, include_bounds, and include_components are never explained, and their meaning (e.g., what 'nearby' means, what components entails) is left entirely to the agent's inference. The example only demonstrates the required 'actor' parameter.

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 specific verb ('Describe') with a resource ('one actor') and lists the covered attributes: transform, bounds, tags, components, and neighbors. This is clear and reasonably specific. It does not fully differentiate from overlapping siblings like get_actor_properties, get_actor_identity, or spatial_query_actors, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., get_actor_properties, find_actors_by_class, spatial_query_actors). The usage context is only implied by the word 'describe.' There are no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites mentioned. The KB reference points to world-building best practices rather than tool selection guidance.

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