npc_input_str

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state prerequisites (an active NPC dialog prompt), what happens on invalid or unexpected input, or any side effect on dialog state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brief, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 dialog tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it omits the dialog-context prerequisite and how this routes versus npc_input_int and npc_choose.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, but the description's phrase 'text input' loosely maps to it. Beyond that hint, no format, length, or expected-value guidance is added.

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?

Names a specific verb (Submit) and resource (text input to an NPC dialog), which is enough for an agent to identify it as the string variant alongside npc_input_int. It does not explicitly contrast itself with that integer sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when the dialog expects text versus the sibling npc_input_int, nor any mention that an NPC dialog must already be open. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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