hunt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine behavior beyond the schema: the hunt is continuous rather than one-shot, and an empty string terminates it. It does not say what happens on player death, when the monster is unreachable, or whether the loop ends on its own.

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?

Three short sentences, all load-bearing: purpose, multi-value format, and the stop sentinel. The core purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation well but omits the operational context an agent needs to use it safely: relationship to 'attack'/'stop_attack', termination conditions, and any failure behavior.

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, and it does: it defines the value as a monster name, specifies comma-separation for multiple types, and defines the empty-string sentinel for stopping. Only the exact accepted name format (case, exact spelling) is left undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('hunt monster(s) by name') and adds a scope qualifier ('continuously'), which distinguishes it from a one-shot action. However, it never names the closely related siblings 'attack' and 'stop_attack', so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Pass empty string to stop' gives real usage information about terminating the hunt, and 'continuously' implies the long-running nature of the tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus 'attack'/'stop_attack', and no statement of prerequisites such as being alive or in range.

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