use_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool consumes an item and applies an effect to a target (defaulting to self), but does not mention consequences for missing items, invalid targets, or whether the action is reversible. The consumption is implicitly destructive but not explicitly stated, which is a gap for agents needing safety details.

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 concise, starting with a clear one-line purpose. The Args and Returns sections are formatted cleanly with bullet-like structure, making it easy to scan. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return indication. No superfluous text.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects for agent invocation. It explains parameters, default behavior, and return type. However, it omits edge cases like item not in inventory or invalid target, which would improve completeness. Overall, it is adequate for the task.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides an example for 'item' ('Job Retry Potion') and explains 'target' as 'Target of item effect' with the default 'self.' This adds valuable context beyond the schema's type-only definition, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'Use a consumable from inventory,' which clearly states the action (use) and the resource (consumable item). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'equip' (for equipping, not consuming) and 'examine' (for inspection). The verb 'use' combined with 'consumable' is specific and unambiguous.

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 (to consume an item from inventory) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or contrast it with alternatives like 'equip' or 'examine.' With 15 sibling tools, an explicit usage note would help, but the default target parameter and item example provide some implicit guidance.

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