look_at_surroundings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering for 'darkness, fog, and perception' and that it 'returns exits and entities', which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating filtering details from return values.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 50% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on usage, error handling, or output format. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, this leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

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 50% (only 'observerId' has a description). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It implies context about observation but doesn't explain 'observerId' or 'sessionId' further. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Get filtered room description accounting for darkness, fog, and perception. Returns exits and entities.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('room description'), and key filters. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_room_exits' or 'get_narrative_context', which might offer overlapping functionality.

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 (e.g., requires an active session), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_room_exits' or 'get_narrative_context_notes'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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