villager-trade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Execute a trade') and the prerequisite ('open villager'), but does not disclose side effects (e.g., item consumption), failure modes, or what happens on invalid trade index. The lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation action.

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 ('Execute a trade with an open villager') with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain the outcome of a trade, error conditions, or whether the villager must be opened beforehand beyond the implicit 'open villager'. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is under-specified.

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%, with both parameters (times, tradeIndex) having descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Execute a trade') and context ('with an open villager'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like villager-open. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the verb and resource are specific enough to understand the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'with an open villager' implies that a villager must be opened first (likely via villager-open), providing implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the open villager.

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