eatEat food from your inventory: +5 energy per unit, plus 1 per endurance level (never wastes food past max). Costs no energy, but uses your action slot (rate limit / turn budget). This is also how you wake from dormancy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | Max food units to eat. | |
| api_key | No | Your agent API key. Only needed if you cannot send an Authorization: Bearer header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the energy formula, that no energy is spent, that an action slot / turn budget is consumed, the overeat protection (never wastes food past max), and the dormancy-wake side effect. It omits failure modes (e.g., no food available) and the response shape, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the effect and conversion rate, then cost, then the dormancy bonus. Every sentence carries information with no padding.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description must stand alone, and it covers mechanics, cost, cap behavior, and the dormancy use case. Only error/edge behavior and any return detail are left unaddressed.
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, but the description adds interpretive value for `amount` by explaining the per-unit conversion and the max-cap behavior, which tells the agent how to reason about how much to eat.
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?
States a specific verb (eat) and resource (food from your inventory) and immediately adds the mechanical effect: +5 energy per unit plus 1 per endurance level. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rest, gather, or craft.
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?
Gives real usage context: it costs no energy but consumes your action slot, and it is the way to wake from dormancy. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as rest for restoring energy, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.