look

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool is 'always safe to resync' (non-destructive) and 'server-rendered' (potentially heavyweight), but lacks details on performance, rate limits, or side effects beyond that.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key points (what is shown, safety). However, it could mention potential performance impacts of server-rendering or clarify that it updates the state, but overall it is minimally complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so no parameter details are needed from the description. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (map, status, exits), which is not captured in the schema.

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 the tool provides a server-rendered map, status, and legal exits, distinguishing it from siblings like 'ask_directions' or 'get_state'. The verb 'look' is implied, and the resource scope is specified.

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 this tool is for refreshing the current overview and is safe to use anytime ('Always safe to resync'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'ask_directions' or 'get_state', nor specify when not to use it.

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