check_passages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the centre-line method, the doorway-versus-corridor length rule, measurement accuracy to about one cell, and that width includes agent_radius and errs on the small side. It also states that violations are returned with positions and a map. It does not explicitly declare read-only status or permissions, which prevents a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then adds the algorithm, output, and start behavior in four dense sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information. It is slightly dense but not bloated.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers the check logic, accuracy, return shape, and multi-level start behavior. It leaves some parameter semantics incomplete, especially names and agent_height, but provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool sensibly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It explains door_length, min_door, min_corridor, agent_radius, and start, and implies cell via 'one cell'. However, names and agent_height are not clarified, leaving meaningful gaps for an 8-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb and resource: finding doorways and corridors that are too narrow. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like walkable_map and route by focusing on narrow-passage violations rather than mapping or routing. An agent can tell what this tool checks without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: check a level for narrow doorways and corridors. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as walkable_map or check_game_ready. The only routing hint is a parameter note about start for multi-level areas, not tool selection.

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