where_am_i

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It explicitly says 'Read-only,' enumerates the exact return fields, and explains the dangerous relative-path behavior and the role of INSPEXIMUS_SCOPE and path_source in determining which store is reached.

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 front-loaded with the question and usage trigger, and every paragraph contributes actionable detail. It is somewhat long for a zero-parameter tool, but the extended failure narrative earns its place by explaining why the tool exists and why location awareness matters.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent when to call, what will be returned, what path_source means, how to change the behavior with INSPEXIMUS_SCOPE, and that the operation is read-only. An agent can invoke and interpret this tool correctly without further information.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered at 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none; it instead adds contextual meaning around environment configuration that affects invocation indirectly.

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 direct question, 'WHICH STORE AND SCOPE AM I TALKING TO?', and clearly states the tool's job: report the absolute store path, path_source, file existence, memory count, project scope, and embedder/receipt posture. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by tying its purpose to a specific diagnostic failure: 'a recall comes back emptier than expected.'

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 gives explicit triggers: 'Call it first in a session, or whenever a recall comes back emptier than expected.' It clearly implies this is a diagnostic orientation tool rather than a routine memory operation, though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives or list exclusion conditions.

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