whereami

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the position comes from the save and may be minutes stale if it is an autosave, which is exactly the kind of caveat an agent needs before trusting coordinates.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the staleness caveat and the selector hint. Nothing is padded, though the opening line mixes purpose and return contents in a way that is slightly dense.

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 what is returned and the staleness caveat, which is the main behavioral risk for a read-only positional tool with no output schema. It is incomplete on the 5-parameter surface (save/world/limit), leaving the agent to infer scope and pagination behavior from the schema alone.

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 20% — only `as_of` is documented, and even that only in the schema. The description hints at what `radius_m` means by referencing `near:me@<radius_m>`, but `save`, `world`, and `limit` (with its max of 25) are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a concrete verb+resource: it reports where the player stands along with the resource nodes, buildings and cave in the surrounding area. That is far more than a restatement of 'whereami'. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like describe_location or show_on_map, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one concrete usage cue: the `near:me@<radius_m>` source selector can be used to plan around the current position, which tells the agent how this tool plugs into planning tools. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over describe_location, show_on_map, or world_summary, and no exclusions.

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