geck_placement_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Assess' weakly implies a read-only analysis, and the cell_form_id restriction adds one constraint, but the description does not disclose what the report contains, what prerequisites exist, whether the active plugin matters, or what 'saved placed records' refers to.

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 words. It states the main action and the key constraint efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given six parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is too thin to allow reliable invocation. It addresses only cell_form_id, leaving the purpose of suspicious_z_delta, suspicious_distance, game_dir, and plugin_name entirely unexplained. The output schema helps for return values, but not for input semantics or behavioral context.

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 should compensate by explaining parameters. It only clarifies that cell_form_id acts as an anchor restriction, and even calls it 'required' despite the schema listing it as optional with a null default. The other five parameters (backend, game_dir, plugin_name, suspicious_z_delta, suspicious_distance) are given no semantic context in the description.

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 uses the specific verb 'assess' and identifies the resource ('saved placed records against the status bar'), which clearly distinguishes it from planning or patching tools. The phrase 'restricted to the required anchor cell_form_id' adds scope. However, the meaning of 'status bar' and 'saved placed records' is assumed rather than explained.

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 description implies the tool is used for assessing placement records within a specific cell, and the cell_form_id restriction gives some context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like geck_esp_patch_ref_to_status_bar or geck_placement_plan_from_status_bar, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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