take_short_rest

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 spending hit dice to recover HP, which implies a mutation effect, but doesn't address other behavioral aspects like whether this consumes resources permanently, requires specific character states, has cooldowns, or what happens if invalid parameters are provided. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 extremely concise—two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key mechanic. Every word earns its place with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core action. This is a model of efficiency in tool descriptions.

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 this is a mutation tool (implied by 'spend' and 'recover') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what side effects occur, error conditions, or how it interacts with other game systems. For a tool that modifies character state in a complex gaming environment, more context 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?

The schema description coverage is 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the relationship between hit dice spent and HP recovered, clarify the purpose of sessionId, or provide examples. It relies entirely on the schema for parameter 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 short rest') with a specific duration (1 hour) and purpose ('Spend hit dice to recover HP'), making the verb+resource explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from its sibling tool 'take_long_rest' or other rest-related tools like 'rest_party', leaving room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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 like 'take_long_rest' or 'rest_party', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer when this specific rest type is appropriate.

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