list_corpses_nearby

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns paginated results, the format of output (e.g., list of corpse IDs or full details), or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the key elements of the operation.

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 (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address output format, error conditions, or dependencies like session validity. For a spatial query tool in a game/world context, more detail on what 'corpses' entails (e.g., decay state, inventory) and how results are structured would be necessary for effective use.

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 but adds minimal value. It mentions 'near a position' which loosely relates to 'x', 'y', and 'radius' parameters, but doesn't explain units (e.g., grid coordinates), the meaning of 'worldId' or 'sessionId', or default behaviors like the radius default of 3. With 5 parameters entirely undocumented in the schema, the description fails to provide adequate semantic context.

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 action ('List') and resource ('corpses near a position in the world'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_corpses_in_encounter' by specifying a spatial search around coordinates rather than encounter-based listing. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the world context or differentiate from other corpse-related tools like 'get_corpse' or 'cleanup_corpses' beyond the 'nearby' aspect.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a valid world session, nor does it compare with siblings such as 'list_corpses_in_encounter' for encounter-specific searches or 'get_corpse' for single corpse retrieval. The lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on parameter names alone.

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