feed_bot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well to state the hunger scale (0 = full, 100 = starving) and the direction of happiness/health effects, but says nothing about feeding limits, overfeeding consequences, cooldowns, or what the response contains. For a zero-parameter mutation this is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Three compact sentences: action, effects with scale, then trigger. The core behavior and the hunger scale are front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical hunger explanation slightly interrupts the flow.

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 simple no-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, its effects, and when to use it. Missing only return-value expectations and interaction with sibling tools like give_treat, which would be needed to make routing fully reliable.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed ('Feed the bot Pixel'), and there are no parameter semantics to compensate for.

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?

Specific verb ('Feed') and resource ('the bot') with explicit effects: reduces hunger, boosts happiness and health. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling give_treat, which is a closely related feeding action, so an agent cannot tell when to pick one over the other from the description alone.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use when the user says the bot is hungry or asks to feed it.' This is actionable context for when to call it. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative such as give_treat or play_with_bot, which leaves edge cases unresolved.

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