Eat Food

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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), but the description adds valuable context: it equips the food first, then eats it to restore hunger, and includes error cases. It also implies consumption of the food item without contradicting the destructiveHint=false annotation (since that likely refers to the environment).

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 cover purpose, return value, and error conditions. No wasted words; the essential information is front-loaded.

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 simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the action, the prerequisite (food in inventory), the effect (restore hunger), and all relevant error cases. No additional context is needed.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage for the single param, and the description additionally clarifies that the item must be a food item from inventory. The schema's examples ('cooked_beef', 'bread', 'apple') are reinforced by the description's 'a food item from inventory'.

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+resource: 'Equips a food item from inventory and eats it to restore hunger.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like use_held_item, equip_item, or toss_item by specifying the eat action and the hunger restoration purpose.

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 usage when the bot needs to restore hunger, and it lists error conditions including when the bot can't eat (food already full). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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