brain_where_is

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not disclose any potential side effects or mutation behavior. It merely says 'run the action' without mentioning that it might delete, modify, or have irreversible effects. No additional behavioral traits are described beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It clearly separates the action name from the routing context and parameter list. No fluff or unnecessary wording.

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?

The tool is a thin wrapper around a domain action, but the description omits essential context: what 'where_is' does, what output to expect, when to use it, and how it differs from the similarly named sibling tool. The routing details are present but are not relevant to a calling agent. This leaves the tool incomplete for practical 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?

The description provides brief explanations for the two parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This offers some semantic value beyond the bare schema, but lacks detail on expected structure, examples, or how they relate to the 'where_is' action. Given the schema has no descriptions, this partial explanation is slightly helpful but still under-specified.

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 states it runs the 'where_is' domain action, but does not explain what the action actually does or returns. The name is vague, and no functional purpose is provided, making it hard to understand when or why to use this tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'where_is' (the sibling tool), 'brain_describe_anatomy', or other domain actions. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or comparison to related tools.

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