where_am_i

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it clearly frames the operation as describing (read-only) and lists the state dimensions it reports. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify state' or discuss errors, but the verb and scope make side effects and behavior adequately clear for this query tool.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence states what the tool does before a colon-separated list of specifics; every listed item adds information and none is filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the relevant situational details and does not need to document return structure. It fully specifies what aspects of the screen are described, which is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is already complete, so there is no parameter ambiguity; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no misleading or redundant parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Describe the current screen') and enumerates the exact aspects covered (menu path, model, record id, view type, record state, dirty/new flags, open dialog, notifications), making its intent unmistakable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the content distinguishes it from visual (screenshot) or low-level (get_elements) tools.

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 wording implies the tool is for obtaining a structured summary of the current UI context, but there is no explicit statement about when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. An agent would need to infer its relationship to tools like screenshot or get_elements.

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