examine

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that enemies are immune until examined, a key trait, but does not cover other behaviors (e.g., what happens if target doesn't exist, if it consumes an action, or if it can be used on items). The mention of 'system feature' in the description but not in Args causes slight inconsistency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus formatted Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the critical hint about undocumented enemies is front-loaded. No redundant 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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema (implied but not shown). The description covers core behavior and a special mechanic. However, it lacks details on error cases or whether examine can be used multiple times on the same target. Given the game context, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must interpret the target parameter. It specifies 'Name of enemy or item to examine,' adding meaning beyond the raw string type. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though 'system feature' is omitted from args.

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 examines an enemy, item, or system feature in detail, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like attack or view_status by focusing on detailed inspection, and the note about Undocumented API enemies reinforces its unique role.

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 when to use the tool ('Critical for Undocumented API enemies'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like view_status. Usage context is suggested but not fully elaborated.

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