spatial_proximity_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how the 'selected actor' is resolved, how hidden actors are handled, or what the resulting map contains. The example is illustrative but omits operational caveats.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by a short KB reference and a concrete example. There is no filler, and the example demonstrates realistic parameter usage.

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?

Given seven optional parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It leaves critical call-site semantics undefined, such as parameter combinations, radius units, filtering behavior, and hidden-actor handling. The existing output schema may cover return values, but it cannot compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context.

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%, yet the description only clarifies actor and radius through the example. It does not explain the center parameter format, the role of limit, tag_filter, class_filter, include_hidden, or how to choose among the three query modes. This is insufficient for a seven-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific operation: 'Map actors near an actor, the selected actor, or a world-space point,' which clearly identifies the resource and spatial scope. It is understandable on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool spatial_query_actors.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus spatial_query_actors, get_actors_in_level, find_actors_by_name, or other spatial query siblings. The KB reference is generic and does not explain selection conditions or exclusions. An agent cannot determine the right tool choice from this description alone.

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