eat-food

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (consuming food) and the effect (restoring hunger), which is useful. However, it does not mention failure conditions (e.g., no food in inventory) or any cooldown requirements.

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, 'Consume food to restore hunger', with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter.

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 low complexity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves some gaps: it does not mention that itemName is optional or that auto-selection occurs, nor does it explicitly state prerequisites like requiring food in inventory. It provides a basic, but not fully comprehensive, context.

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%: the parameter itemName is described with 'Name of the food item to eat (auto-select if not provided)'. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Consume' and the resource 'food', with the purpose 'restore hunger'. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like craft-item, smelt-item, and activate-item.

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 when hunger needs restoring, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as activate-item or explicitly mention when not to use it. Guidance is present only by inference.

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