harvest_corpse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a possible skill check requirement, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., does harvesting destroy the corpse?), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose and includes a key behavioral note. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, prerequisites, and how it interacts with other tools like 'loot_corpse'. For a mutation tool in this context, more comprehensive information is needed.

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 33% (2 out of 6 parameters have descriptions), which is low. The description adds value by implying 'resourceType' refers to things like 'scales, pelts' and that 'skillRoll' and 'skillDC' relate to skill checks, but it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap or explain the semantics of other parameters like 'characterId' or 'sessionId'.

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 ('harvest resources') and target ('from a corpse'), with specific examples ('scales, pelts') that help clarify the resource types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'loot_corpse' or 'get_corpse_inventory', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 context by mentioning 'May require skill check,' suggesting when skill checks are needed, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'loot_corpse' or how it differs from other corpse-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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