use_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the item is consumed, what effects occur, or any prerequisites. The user is left to infer behavior from the term 'consumable'.

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 superfluous words. While efficient, it sacrifices informativeness. Front-loading is fine but could be slightly more detailed.

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 the simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description should explain what happens when used. It fails to mention return values or the result of using an item, leaving significant gaps.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, and the description only gives examples of valid items (potions, draughts, town map). It does not clarify what 'item_key' exactly refers to or how to specify it, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 tool is used for consumable items outside combat, with explicit examples. It distinguishes from combat-related tools by specifying 'outside combat', though it does not differentiate from other item actions like 'fence' 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?

The description implies usage should be outside combat, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as using the item in combat via 'combat_action'.

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