equip

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that equipping changes equipment and returns confirmation, but fails to disclose whether equipping replaces existing items, side effects, or restrictions on equipping multiple items of the same type.

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 short, includes a structured Args/Returns format, and front-loads the main purpose. The Returns line is slightly redundant but not excessive.

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 simple one-parameter tool with output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks behavioral details such as what happens if the item is not in inventory or if equipping replaces existing gear. These gaps are notable given no annotations.

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 adds basic meaning for the sole parameter 'item' by stating 'Item name to equip' in the Args section, but does not specify valid names or format. With 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

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 verb 'Equip' and specifies the resource as 'connector (weapon), error handler (armor), or accessory from inventory.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'use_item' and 'pickup.'

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 for equipping items but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., item must be in inventory).

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