act

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 explains the tool executes actions via bridge but does not disclose side effects, error behaviors, or idempotency. Some actions like killAllEnemy imply destructive behavior, but the description doesn't confirm or elaborate.

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 well-structured with a list of actions and usage notes. It could be slightly more concise by grouping similar actions, but every sentence adds value.

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, the description covers actions and parameter format adequately. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool versus siblings.

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 0%, so the description compensates fully. It lists all possible values for 'action' with their required parameters, explains the params format with examples including comma handling, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it executes a game action through the Mod HTTP bridge, and lists many specific actions, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like navigate, start_battle, etc. It even advises preferring specific tools when a profile is set, showing awareness of alternatives.

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?

It explains the action parameter and the params format with examples, and mentions when to use specific tools based on a profile. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, which would be helpful.

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