look_around

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that information is limited to explored ground and visible entities, implying spatial awareness constraints. However, it never explicitly states that the call is non-mutating or whether the radius affects all returned data.

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 with no filler, and it front-loads the character state before listing environmental details. It is somewhat run-on as a catalog, but 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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool has only one optional parameter, the description captures the main content categories and visibility/exploration constraints. It lacks explicit read-only signaling and usage context, but these are already penalized in other dimensions, and the provided information is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single radius parameter, which already has a description and default value. The description adds no extra meaning about how radius interacts with the observation scope, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool returns: character position, inventory, equipment, jobs, visible entities, resources, buildings, enemies, research, power, and production. It is specific about the resource and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like status, check_inventory, or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use look_around versus alternatives such as status, check_inventory, or scan_area. The agent must infer usage from the listed fields; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided.

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