smelt-item

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the asynchronous nature (returns once the furnace is lit, not when smelting completes), which is valuable. However, it doesn't explicitly state that items and fuel are consumed, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a furnace nearby. This is a notable gap for a resource-consuming tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key return behavior and follow-up instruction. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the immediate return condition, and directs to the appropriate follow-up tool. It doesn't cover edge cases like an already-lit furnace or failure scenarios, but the essentials are present and the workflow is clear.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (itemName, count, fuelName) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating that items and fuel are loaded, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: load a furnace with items and fuel and start smelting. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like craft-item (crafting) and furnace-check (checking progress/collecting output).

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: use this tool to start smelting, then use furnace-check later to see progress and collect the output. It implies when to use the tool and directs to the appropriate follow-up, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions.

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