find_valid_poi_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results are 'ranked candidates by suitability,' which adds some context about output behavior, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, performance considerations, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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 with two clear sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, what 'suitability' means, how ranking works, or error conditions. For a tool that likely involves significant computation and game-world impact, more behavioral context is needed.

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 high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool considers terrain validity and suitability ranking, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for parameters like how 'preferredBiomes' affects ranking or what 'terrain-valid' specifically entails.

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 specific action ('Find terrain-valid locations for placing a POI/structure') and resource ('POI/structure'), with the verb 'Find' and explicit scope of 'terrain-valid locations.' It distinguishes from the only relevant sibling 'suggest_poi_locations' by emphasizing terrain validation and ranking by suitability.

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 alternatives like 'suggest_poi_locations' or other placement tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios where it's appropriate, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation.

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