take_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral trait: failures list available item names. But it does not disclose the core side effect of taking an item, whether the action is reversible, what prerequisites exist, or what happens on success.

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 sentence delivers the core action and a useful failure behavior. No extra words or repeated schema information; the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is thin for a state-changing game action. It does not clarify what taking an item accomplishes, when the action is valid, how the available names are returned, or how it relates to sibling actions like use and drop_item. An agent needs more context to call this reliably.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies that item_name must be the exact name, but it says nothing about adventure_session_id, which is also required. The failure behavior partially informs item_name usage but leaves the session parameter unexplained.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Take an item using its exact name'. It is distinguishable from siblings like use, examine, and drop_item by the semantics of taking, though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when the player wants to take an item, and it emphasizes using the exact name. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it differs from use, examine, or drop_item, leaving routing partly to inference.

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