craft-item

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'using available materials,' hinting at material consumption, but fails to explain failure modes (e.g., insufficient materials), side effects, or what happens when the crafting table parameter is false. This lack of detail undercuts transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the key verb. However, it is almost too brief for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations, lacking an explicit structure that could present additional useful context. Still, it is efficient and to the point.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the crafting process, prerequisites like having materials or a crafting table, or the effect of the count parameter. The description leaves the agent with insufficient context to handle failure or nuanced use cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it merely says 'using available materials,' which is a general hint. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, this score is appropriate.

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 'Craft an item using available materials' clearly states the tool's verb (craft), resource (item), and context (using available materials). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like smelt-item, which handles a different process. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage for crafting items, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like smelt-item. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts beyond the basic purpose, so usage is only implied.

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