mempalace_follow_tunnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the qualifier 'explicit' (opposed to implicit connections), which provides extra behavioral context. It does not describe return behavior or error conditions, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the simple two-parameter schema, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate. The only gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from find_tunnels, but overall context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage): 'Room whose connected tunnel endpoints should be followed' and 'Wing whose connected tunnel endpoints should be followed.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Follow' with a resource 'explicit tunnels connected to a wing/room location,' clearly indicating a traversal operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_tunnels and find_tunnels, though 'explicit' could be more precisely defined.

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 this tool is used when you want to follow connected tunnels from a wing/room, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as find_tunnels or list_tunnels, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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