ro_attack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool attacks a monster, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it is destructive, consumes resources, or can fail), nor does it mention that the attack takes time (waitMs). The waitMs parameter suggests combat duration, but the description does not explain that behavior. This is a significant gap for a combat tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no redundant wording, and every part adds value—the verb, the source of the binID, and the context of 'nearby'. It is a model of concise tool documentation.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential information: how to identify the target (binID from ro_state.nearbyMonsters) and the intended action. However, it omits details about the outcome or failure modes, and it does not mention the time-bounding of the attack (waitMs is only in the schema). An agent can call it correctly, but it lacks some context about what to expect, making it incomplete for a richer behavioral understanding.

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 describes waitMs with a description, but binID lacks one. The description compensates by specifying that binID comes from ro_state.nearbyMonsters, adding meaning beyond the raw integer type. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description helps for binID, but it does not elaborate on the constraints or format of the binID. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 clearly states the action ('Attack') and specifies the target as 'a nearby monster by its binID from ro_state.nearbyMonsters'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with movement (ro_walk), dialog (ro_talk_npc), or state (ro_state). It does not merely restate the tool name; it gives a specific verb and resource. However, it could be more explicit about what 'attack' entails (e.g., initiating combat) or the outcome, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implicitly guides usage by referencing ro_state.nearbyMonsters, indicating that users must first call ro_state to obtain a valid binID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or conditions. There is no mention of when to walk away or use other tools. The context is clear but the guidance is not explicit enough for a higher score.

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