shop_buy

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 the workflow precondition and the side effect ("The buy list will appear in game state"), which is useful. But it omits whether the call mutates state beyond opening the list, any authentication/permission needs, or error behavior.

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, purpose front-loaded, each carrying distinct information (purpose, precondition, outcome). No filler; only minor room to restructure.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers purpose, trigger, and side effect, which is adequate. It still leaves the parameter undefined and does not distinguish shop_buy from the sibling buy tool, so it is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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% and the single parameter npc_id is undocumented. The description references "a shop NPC" but never explains what npc_id is, its format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ("Open a shop NPC's buy list"), which tells the agent what happens and to which object. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling "buy" tool, leaving the agent unclear on why both exist.

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?

Gives a clear precondition: "Use after clicking a shop NPC (0x00c4 event)." This is genuine when-to-use guidance. It lacks exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g., shop_sell for selling, buy for purchasing), so it stops short of a 5.

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