whereami

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the staleness issue, the source pawn, and how to apply the result practically. It doesn't describe the output format or content details of 'around them', but the key caveat is covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential behavioral context. Every sentence adds value without padding.

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 purpose, a key staleness caveat, and a usage tip, but lacks information about return values, the meaning of 'around them', and details for save/world parameters. Given no output schema or annotations, this leaves meaningful gaps for a new agent.

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 only 25% (only 'limit' has a description). The description hints at radius through `near:me,<radius>` but doesn't explain the radius_m parameter or the save/world parameters. It insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 that the tool reports the player's standing position and nearby surroundings. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_location by focusing on the player's pawn location, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It explains that position comes from the Char_Player_C pawn in the save and can be stale, giving important context for when the result is reliable. It also provides an explicit usage tip: using `near:me,<radius>` as a source selector in planning tools to scope work.

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