feed_baseling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key effects (hunger increase, delayed POOP) but omits critical details such as food consumption, approval requirements, or transaction outcomes. The delay parameter is mentioned but not explained.

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?

One sentence with a parenthetical detail. Front-loaded verb and resource. Could be slightly more descriptive without being verbose, but overall efficient.

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 complexity (game with delayed reward, multiple tokens, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to claim POOP, what happens to food inventory, or any confirmation of the action. Siblings like claim_poop suggest separate steps, but this isn't linked.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, it doesn't explain what each foodType does or how amount affects the game mechanics.

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 'Feed a baseling' and the effects: increases hunger and earns POOP after 4hr delay. It distinguishes from siblings like buy_food or feeding_guide, but could be more specific about the exact resource being modified.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like claim_poop or buy_food. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer context from sibling names, which is insufficient.

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