Look Around

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'This does not change virtual world state.' It also discloses the specific behavioral scope (room, visible objects, destinations, inventory, attempts). While the state-change statement aligns with annotations, it adds little beyond them, but the explicit behavioral detail is useful.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. The first sentence lists exact outputs, and the second sentence clarifies side-effect-free behavior. 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?

With an output schema present, return value details are already covered. The description covers the operation's scope, safety, and game-specific context (attempts remaining), and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, with runId fully documented as an opaque run ID returned by start_run. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the current room'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: visible object IDs, destination IDs, inventory, and attempts remaining. This clearly differentiates 'look' from siblings like 'move' or 'submit' and even from 'list_rooms' by focusing on the current room context.

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 for reading the current room state but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'inspect' or 'list_rooms'. There is no when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the stated purpose.

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