can_place

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses no side effects, caps at 24 placements per call, and describes the response shape (yes/no with blocker). It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., errors when positions are un-explored), but key behaviors are clearly stated. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence leads with purpose and side-effect status; the second adds batch limit and response format. Every word earns its place.

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 query tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational constraints (no side effects, max batch, response semantics) and the scope ('explored positions'). It doesn't explain coordinate system or item selection details, but those are likely in the schema or game context, so the description 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the batch limit for the placements parameter and connects items/positions to the tool's purpose, but it does not explain x, y, item, or direction beyond what the schema's direction description already provides. Partial compensation.

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 ('check'), resource ('items... at explored positions'), and a defining constraint ('no side effects'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like place_entity and build_plan. An agent can immediately tell this is a feasibility query, not an action.

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?

Gives clear context for when the check is valid ('right now', 'explored positions') and batch limits, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, leaving usage to be inferred from purpose. The sibling tool place_entity is an obvious alternative but is not referenced.

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