Adventure

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. It discloses that the tool generates, loads, and lists content and that it is not for recording story beats, but it does not state side effects such as whether generation persists content, whether loading changes the current session/module state, or what the tool returns. These omissions are noticeable but not misleading.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the core capability, followed by conditional use and non-use guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details or filler.

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?

Given the multi-action nature of the tool and the 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema are largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The use/when-not guidance names the relevant sibling, and the schema maps parameters to actions. The only gap is the lack of return/output behavior, which is somewhat inferable for a content-generation tool. No output schema exists to fill this gap, but the omission is minor.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds use-case framing around the actions (scaffold, encounter, module) but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already associates parameters with actions, so the description adds marginal but non-essential value here.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Generate, load, or list adventure content.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'story' tool by saying it should not be used for recording a story beat. This gives an agent clear differentiation without needing to inspect the schema.

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 gives explicit 'Use when' conditions for each of the main actions (new scaffold, single encounter, prepared module) and an explicit 'Do NOT use when' condition, naming the correct alternative tool, story (action: record). This is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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