cleanup_corpses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool removes corpses, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether removal is permanent, side effects (e.g., on inventory or game state), or error handling. The description is minimal and misses critical context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and condition. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, it's incomplete. The description doesn't cover what happens after removal (e.g., state changes, return values), error cases, or dependencies. For a mutation tool in a complex system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 1 parameter (sessionId) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, but since there's only one parameter and it's likely a contextual identifier (common in sibling tools like 'initialize_session'), the lack of parameter info is less critical. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the single, presumably straightforward parameter.

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 action ('Remove') and target ('corpses that have fully decayed'), with a specific condition (state = gone). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'advance_corpse_decay' (which changes state) and 'harvest_corpse' (which likely interacts differently with corpses). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_character' or 'delete_item', which might handle similar resources differently.

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 when corpses are in a 'gone' state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_character' or 'harvest_corpse'. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the condition alone.

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