take_long_rest

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 restorative effect (HP to maximum) and future spell slot restoration, but misses critical behavioral details: whether this consumes resources, triggers events, affects other characters, has cooldowns, or requires specific conditions (e.g., not in combat). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action and effect. The second sentence about future enhancements is somewhat speculative but not wasteful. It could be more structured by separating current and future behaviors, but overall it's efficient.

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 mutation tool with game-state impact), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context such as side effects, error conditions, return values, and interaction with other game mechanics (e.g., time advancement, event triggers).

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 50% (only 'characterId' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 2 parameters and partial schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 'sessionId' parameter, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to adequate but incomplete documentation.

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 ('Take a long rest') and its primary effect ('Restores HP to maximum'), with a future enhancement mentioned. It distinguishes from sibling 'take_short_rest' by specifying duration (8 hours vs. short rest's typical 1 hour), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'rest_party' (which might handle group rests).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'take_short_rest' or 'rest_party' is provided. The description implies usage for healing HP, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., safe location), timing constraints, or trade-offs (e.g., time passage effects).

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