omni_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact composition of returned data (slot id, label, item id, count, meta, damage) and covers the inventory sections, which gives useful context. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe side effects, error behavior, or performance characteristics.

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 entire description is a single line with no filler words. It front-loads the scope ('Full inventory, hotbar, and armor') and packs the field details into a compact parenthetical, making every word informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does: the inventory sections and their six fields. It leaves the structural grouping of those sections unspecified, but an agent can reasonably understand the expected data. Minor gaps exist around error cases and whether this requires an active world connection.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing to document. The parenthetical detail in the description is about the return format, not parameters, and it does not need to explain missing parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 names the resource (inventory, hotbar, armor) and the data fields included, so the agent can infer this is a read operation that returns a snapshot of the player's equipment. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as omni_player or omni_state.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites (e.g., being in a world), and no exclusions. The agent receives no guidance on how this relates to omni_player, omni_state, or other inventory-related tools.

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