ro_walk

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 behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it waits until arrival, but does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., unreachable path), whether it can be interrupted, whether it requires a specific character state, or what the tool returns. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured hints, as the agent cannot anticipate side effects or error behavior.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and the waiting condition. While it is under-specified, conciseness itself is not a flaw—it is appropriately brief. It could be expanded with more details without becoming verbose, but the current length is efficient and waste-free.

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 four parameters (two required) and no output schema, the description falls short of what an agent needs to call the tool reliably. It does not describe return values, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., unreachable coordinates). The lack of detail on x/y ranges and timeout behavior makes it incomplete, especially since the schema does not provide these details either.

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 only 25% (only tolerance has a description). The tool description says 'coordinates' but does not define the coordinate system, units, or valid ranges for x and y. timeoutMs is not explained at all. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving significant ambiguity about how to correctly populate the parameters.

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 (walk) and the target (coordinates on the current map) and includes the deferral (wait until arrival). This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like ro_warp, leaving the agent to infer that 'walk' implies a different behavior than teleporting. A 5 would require explicit differentiation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 instead of ro_warp or other movement-related commands. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which it is the appropriate choice. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so an agent has to infer usage from context. This falls below the 'implied usage' level because there is no hint about when walking is preferable to other methods.

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