cc_catch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that catching is not guaranteed and that difficulty and party bond matter, but it does not explain what happens on failure or if there are side effects (e.g., creature escapes). More detail on outcomes would improve transparency.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides constraints, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and usage condition. It could be slightly more complete by describing the possible outcomes of the catch attempt, but it is adequate.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds useful context about preconditions and mechanics, which exceeds the baseline for a param-less tool.

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: to attempt to catch a creature. It specifies the prerequisite context (during cc_explore when a creature has appeared) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by linking it explicitly to cc_explore.

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 a clear condition for use ('Only usable when a creature has appeared during cc_explore') and notes that success is not guaranteed, with difficulty and party bond as factors. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the condition is sufficient.

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