npc_reward

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

Discloses the tool's unique role, server-imposed limits, and canonical refusal behavior. However, since no annotations exist, the description could further clarify that it modifies game state (e.g., gold/items) and whether it's reversible.

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?

Description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, stating limits, and handling failures. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

While the purpose and usage are well-covered, the description lacks detail on parameter meaning and tool output (e.g., success/failure response). Given no output schema and no annotations, this gap reduces completeness for an agent to use the tool 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?

The description mentions gold and items but does not explain the parameters individually (npc_key, gold, reason, item_key). For instance, 'reason' is not described, and the schema has 0% coverage, leaving the agent to infer meaning from property names alone.

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 that the tool is for NPCs to pay or gift gold/items to the player, and emphasizes it's the ONLY way for such transfers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'buy' or 'give_item'.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (only way for NPC to give), limitations (cap, one per day), and how to handle refusal (narrate inability). Also instructs not to narrate payment without using this tool, providing clear usage boundaries.

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