get_inventory_detailed

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the inventory is 'detailed' and sorted, but does not explain what 'detailed' entails (e.g., item stats, quantities, conditions), whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Get detailed inventory with full item info, sorted by equipped/type/name.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes additional details without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (inventory retrieval with sorting), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed' means, how sorting works, what the output format is, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves too much unspecified for effective use.

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 two parameters (characterId and sessionId) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description does not mention or explain these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of coverage. However, since there are only two parameters and the tool name implies character context, a baseline score of 3 is assigned, but the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed inventory with full item info, sorted by equipped/type/name.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed inventory'), and scope ('full item info, sorted by equipped/type/name'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_inventory' or 'get_corpse_inventory', which might offer different inventory views.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_inventory' or 'get_corpse_inventory', nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring a character to be loaded or in a specific state. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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