npc

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 discloses almost nothing: not whether the call blocks pending player selection, whether an out-of-range or invalid npc_id fails silently or errors, nor that further npc_* calls are typically required to progress the dialog.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly the source of the specification gaps rather than deliberate economy.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, no enum, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent unable to determine valid npc_id values or the follow-up calls. For a tool that anchors a multi-step dialog flow, this is a substantial gap.

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% for the single required parameter npc_id. The description only says 'an NPC' and adds no information about where the id comes from, whether it is a map-local entity id or a global template id, or what values are valid.

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 concrete action and outcome: clicking/targeting an NPC to open a dialog session. 'Start dialog' implicitly separates it from the continuation siblings (npc_next, npc_choose, npc_input_str), though it never names them or states that this is the entry point of the NPC interaction flow.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sequence relationship to npc_next, npc_choose, npc_input_str, and npc_close is left entirely to inference, as is any prerequisite such as standing near the NPC or knowing its id.

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