ro_talk_npc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (dialog text and menu options) but omits side effects like whether dialog opens, if the character must be in proximity, or if the call blocks until a response. The existence of timeoutMs implies waiting, but that isn't described.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and output, followed by parameter identification. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover the targeting contract (one of binID/coordinates), the timeout semantics, and how this fits into the dialog flow. Only the output and identification methods are given, leaving significant context gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 25% (only binID has a description). The description adds meaning for x/y ('map coordinates') and binID ('from ro_state'), but timeoutMs is left undocumented. It also doesn't clarify whether binID and coordinates are mutually exclusive or if at least one is required, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 clear verb ('talk to') and resource ('NPC'), and specifies the output: 'dialog text plus any menu options.' It also names two identification methods (binID or map coordinates), which distinguishes it from the other dialog tools like ro_dialog_next or ro_menu_select.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings such as ro_dialog_next, ro_close_dialog, or ro_menu_select. It only explains how to identify the NPC, not the conversational context or that this is the initial dialog action.

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