where_was_i

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool compares current playback to the full chapter list and only reports results, strongly implying a read-only, non-mutating operation. It could be more explicit about failure modes like no active playback, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, dense sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds information about what the tool does or returns.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics itself. It covers the key results: chapter identity, progress within it, and remaining listening time. It does not specify exact field names or edge-case behavior, but for a positioning query this is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-document parameters. It adds slight context by implying audiobook_id refers to the currently playing audiobook, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema already states about audiobook_id or response_format.

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 names a specific use case ('orient yourself in an audiobook') and concrete outputs: current chapter, playback progress, and remaining listening time. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic playback tools, but does not explicitly compare against similar siblings like audiobook_progress or audiobook_chapter_map.

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 phrase 'Orient yourself in an audiobook' plus 'matches current playback' makes the intended trigger clear: the agent should use this when a user asks where they are in an audiobook or how much is left. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is strong enough without them.

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