loot_encounter

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 effectively describes key behaviors: automatic corpse finding, loot transfer mechanics, optional currency distribution, and comprehensive summary return. It also mentions potential failure conditions ('may fail without skill check' for harvestable resources). The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about permissions or side effects beyond the core functionality.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, immediately provides the efficiency benefit, lists automated behaviors, and then gives practical examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context. It explains the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, behaviors, and parameter semantics through examples. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the format of the 'comprehensive loot summary' return value, though this is somewhat mitigated by the detailed parameter explanations.

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?

With 88% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description adds significant value through the three detailed examples that illustrate parameter combinations and their semantic implications. The examples show how parameters interact (e.g., partyId with distributeEvenly, selective looting with include flags) which goes beyond what the schema descriptions provide.

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 with specific verbs ('loot all corpses', 'transfers all loot') and resources ('from an encounter'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it replaces 'list_corpses_in_encounter + N×loot_corpse', making its unique value proposition clear.

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 explicit usage guidelines by stating when to use this tool ('REPLACES: list_corpses_in_encounter + N×loot_corpse') and the token savings benefit (~85%). It also gives clear alternatives through the examples showing different looting scenarios (single looter, party distribution, selective looting).

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