inspect_entity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes important scope limitations: searched within 1.5 tiles, explored ground only, other forces only while visible, and up to 16 entities per call. While it does not explicitly state that the call has no side effects, the read-oriented nature and detailed data list make that reasonably clear.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Details of entities near map positions') and then packs necessary constraints into parentheticals. It is not bloated, though a slightly more structured layout could improve readability. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 behavior and result contents well, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it leaves ambiguity around the input contract: all three parameters are optional and there is no explanation of how x/y vs. targets are used, which could cause incorrect calls.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented x and y parameters. It adds context about map positions, the search radius, and batch limits, but it does not clarify how x/y relate to the targets array, whether they can be combined, or what happens if no position is provided.

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 clearly states the tool returns details of entities near map positions and enumerates the specific fields returned (type, status, recipe, inventories, etc.). It is specific enough to distinguish from general-purpose siblings like status or look_around, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 description gives useful contextual constraints (1.5 tile search radius, explored ground only, other forces only while visible, max 16 per call), which imply when it is appropriate to call. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over siblings like scan_area or analyze_factory, nor does it state when not to use it.

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