suggest_poi_locations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Returns DSL script for easy application,' which adds some context about the output format. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what permissions are required, how suggestions are generated (e.g., algorithmic constraints), or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and output. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's complexity (batch processing of POI locations with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the output is a 'DSL script' but doesn't describe its structure or how to apply it. For a tool with no behavioral transparency and moderate parameter coverage, more context is needed to guide 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 67%, with parameters like 'worldId' and 'requests' having descriptions, but 'sessionId' lacks one. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the meaning of 'POI types' in context, the implications of 'nearWater' or 'preferredBiomes', or how the DSL script relates to inputs. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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: 'Batch suggest locations for multiple POI types at once.' It specifies the verb ('suggest'), resource ('locations'), and scope ('multiple POI types at once'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_valid_poi_location' (which might handle single POI requests), so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'batch suggest' but doesn't clarify scenarios where batch processing is preferred over single POI tools or other location-related operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives provided.

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