geck_placement_plan_from_status_bar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Dry-run' usefully communicates a non-destructive, planning behavior, and 'from GECK's status-bar coordinate' indicates the input source. However, it does not disclose whether GECK must be running, how failures surface, or whether any UI interaction occurs, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently, though some critical explanatory content is missing, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and only a terse one-line description, the context is insufficient. An agent cannot fully determine when to invoke this tool, how parameters like use_status_rotation or object_kind affect the plan, or what behavioral guarantees 'dry-run' provides.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only generically references 'offsets' and 'coordinate plus offsets.' It does not explain rot_x/y/z, use_status_rotation, object_kind, or backend, leaving most of the 9 parameters semantically unexplained despite clear schema gaps.

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 identifies a specific operation—computing a dry-run placement target from the GECK status-bar coordinate plus offsets—and the name reinforces the 'plan' aspect, distinguishing it from patch-style siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, but 'Dry-run' signals a planning operation rather than a modification.

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?

The word 'Dry-run' implies the tool should be used to preview a placement before actually applying changes, especially given siblings like geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar_offset. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus the patch or report siblings, leaving the intended context to inference.

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