leave

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose one meaningful constraint (cannot be invoked during combat), which is more than nothing. It does not say what happens to the character/state after leaving or whether the action is reversible, leaving a gap for a state-changing tool. Return values are covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable.

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?

A single short sentence containing the action and its constraint, with the action front-loaded and no filler.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool whose return shape is documented by an output schema, purpose plus the out-of-combat constraint covers what an agent needs to call it. The only real gap is the absence of any post-action state description, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is trivially complete and the description adds no parameter noise.

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?

States a specific verb ('Leave') and a concrete resource ('the current room/shop'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with navigation-adjacent siblings like proceed or cancel, but the verb+resource pairing is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition/exclusion – 'out of combat only' – which tells the agent when this call is legal. It stops short of naming what to use instead when in combat, so the when-not is stated but alternatives are not.

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