ferry_exit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious trait that this is a deferred/automatic action rather than an immediate one. However it omits prerequisites (must be on a ferry), whether the exit can be cancelled, and what happens when bells exceeds the remaining stops.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed immediately by the clarifying example. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter game action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, deferred behavior, and parameter meaning adequately. It would be stronger with a note about being on a ferry or whether the scheduled exit can be overridden.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'bells' parameter has only a type and default, so the description must compensate. It does so well by defining the semantics through concrete examples: bells=1 exits at the next stop, bells=2 skips one stop first.

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 uses a specific verb ('auto-exit') on a specific resource ('the ferry'), so the agent knows exactly what domain action this performs. None of the sibling tools (walk, sit, stand, etc.) overlap, so no differentiation is needed, though it never explicitly frames itself against them.

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?

Usage is implied by the example ('bells=1 exits at next stop') rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. There are no alternative tools for ferry exiting to disambiguate against, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing to already be aboard a ferry.

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