inventory_assistant

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'unified confirmation' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as what actions are destructive, authentication needs, or side effects of the many parameters.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. However, it is in Chinese and could benefit from clearer structure or splitting into multiple points.

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 high complexity (19 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, broad capabilities), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain how to use parameters, what responses look like, or any constraints.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 19 parameters. The agent receives no help understanding what parameters like 'intent', 'confirmed', 'equip' do.

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 clearly states it's an inventory aggregation entry point with actions like check items, filter location, move/equip/lock. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are in different domains (activity, build, etc.), but the scope is broad and could be more specific.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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