find_buildable_area

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals the search rules: free land excludes water/cliffs/entities, trees are allowed and counted, ground must be explored, and the result is the nearest match. It does not mention max_distance semantics or failure behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the core function and all key constraints. Every clause adds semantic value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 description covers the search criteria and location anchor, but leaves max_distance unexplained and does not describe behavior when no area is found. The presence of an output schema offsets return-format gaps, so the definition is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 explains width and height as rectangle dimensions and x/y as the nearby point, but max_distance is entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a fifth parameter without meaning.

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 ('find') and resource ('nearest width x height rectangle of free land') with explicit constraints: no water, cliffs, or entities; trees allowed and counted; explored ground near a point. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like can_place and scan_area.

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?

Implies usage when a rectangular free area is needed near a point, but does not name alternatives or state exclusions. An agent can infer this is a search tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over can_place or scan_area.

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