pickup

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 discloses almost nothing: it does not say where the item goes (inventory?), what happens on failure (item gone, inventory full, out of range), or whether the operation is repeatable. Only the bare action is conveyed.

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 zero filler; the action and its target are stated immediately. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description is too thin to be self-sufficient. It omits return/effect information and failure conditions that an agent needs before invoking it in a game state.

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 parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add one useful semantic — the ID refers to a floor/map item rather than an inventory slot — but gives no detail on range, validity, or what the ID corresponds to in the game world.

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?

States a specific verb (pick up) and resource (a floor item) with the key identifier (ID). It is clearly distinguishable from the inverse tool 'drop' and from inventory tools like 'use'/'equip', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Nothing tells the agent whether it must be standing on/near the item, whether a weight or inventory-space limit applies, or how this differs from picking items up via a shop/NPC flow.

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