look_around

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'review', which implies a read-only observation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether hidden items are revealed, or whether a turn is consumed.

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 concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and 'including any items present there' adds useful specificity without bloat.

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 simple exploration tool with an output schema, the description gives a usable baseline. However, the lack of any relation to sibling tools such as examine, and the absence of behavioral caveats, leaves some context incomplete.

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% and the description does not mention adventure_session_id or its role. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('current place') and adds that items present are included. This clearly distinguishes it from tools like take_item or use, but does not explicitly contrast it with the similar examine sibling.

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 'current place' implies it is for when the agent wants an overview of the current surroundings, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer look_around over examine or other siblings. Usage context is implied, not stated.

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