status

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 does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — a potential connection-establishment side effect ('Connect (if needed)') — which is useful, but discloses nothing else about side effects, safety, or failure modes. Partial but honest disclosure.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence where every clause earns its place: the conditional connection side effect and the three report components. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the essential call context: what may happen (connection) and what is reported. The only real gap is the lack of routing guidance against surrounding-focused siblings, which is minor for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which earns a baseline of 4 under the rubric. Schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is no argument meaning for the description to elaborate on.

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 names a concrete verb ('report') and a specific scope: connection state, character binding, and surroundings summary. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like look_around and check_inventory by bundling these three signals into one composite status view, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need a composite situation/status summary before acting. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over look_around or scan_area for surroundings, nor does it state when not to use it, leaving routing to agent inference.

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