get_nearby_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the fallback behavior (using the loaded Lua bridge build) which is helpful, but it does not describe what 'notable' means, whether results include coordinates/passives, or any side effects. It is a minimal but not misleading disclosure.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a key behavioral detail. No fluff or repetition.

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 likely read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers input behavior and fallback logic, but it omits what the response contains and lacks explicit exclusions. It is adequate for a simple lookup but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small contextual detail about 'current tree allocation' aligning with max_distance, and reinforces build_name optionality via the loaded-build fallback, but it does not enrich parameter semantics significantly beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Find' clearly identifies a search/query action, and the resource is specific: 'notable and keystone passives near your current tree allocation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_path_to_node (pathfinding) and analyze_build (analysis).

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 explains when a loaded build is used (when no build_name is provided) and the scope ('near your current tree allocation'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as suggest_optimal_nodes or get_build_stats. The usage context is implied rather than directly contrasted.

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