report_theft

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 mentions outcomes ('setting bounty and increasing detection chance') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the response looks like, or any side effects (e.g., alerting NPCs). For a tool that likely modifies game state, this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Report a theft to guards') and succinctly adds key outcomes. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a state-modifying tool with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It only implies 'bountyOffered' via 'setting bounty' but doesn't explain 'reporterId', 'itemId', or 'sessionId'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings or usage context.

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 ('Report a theft') and the target ('to guards'), with specific outcomes ('setting bounty and increasing detection chance'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_item_stolen' or 'steal_item' by focusing on reporting rather than checking or performing theft. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings in the large list, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after confirming a theft via 'check_item_stolen'), exclusions, or related tools like 'record_conversation_memory' for logging. With many siblings present, the lack of contextual usage advice is a significant gap.

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