geck_esp_nearby_refs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. 'Find' implies a read-only query and 'near a coordinate' indicates spatial filtering, but the description doesn't state whether this operates on a loaded plugin, what coordinate space is used, or whether any state changes occur. It is not misleading, just minimal.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The key subject, verb, and spatial scoping are all present and front-loaded.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description fails to provide enough operational context for an agent to invoke this correctly: coordinate system, radius behavior, plugin selection semantics, and relation to geo/cell variants are all absent. For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 0%, and the description only loosely maps to parameters: 'near a coordinate' hints at x/y/z, and 'in a plugin' hints at plugin_name. It does not explain radius units/semantics, cell_form_id, game_dir, or how the defaults apply, leaving most of the 7 parameters underspecified.

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 specific verb ('Find') and resource ('placed records in a plugin near a coordinate'), making the core function clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like geck_esp_list_refs or geck_cell_find_refs, so it stops short of a perfect differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as geck_cell_find_refs or geck_esp_list_refs. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and one-line description, with no exclusions or context.

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