play_with_bot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the mutation's side effects on happiness, energy, and hunger plus a failure condition — meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the empty schema. It does not say whether a failed play leaves state untouched or what the error looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the action and its effects come first, and the failure condition is placed last where it belongs. Every clause adds information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent needs: what changes in state and when the call fails. Magnitudes (how much energy/happiness) and post-failure state are unspecified, which is a minor but real gap for an agent reasoning about resource management.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate. It correctly implies a parameterless, single-target action.

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?

"Play with the bot" states a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up sentence enumerates the concrete state effects (happiness up, energy down, hunger up), which distinctively separates it from feed_bot, rest_bot, and give_treat. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the effect profile makes the distinction inferable.

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?

"Fails if the bot is exhausted or sick" gives a usable precondition for calling it, and the energy cost implies a budget consideration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose play over feed_bot/give_treat, nor any suggestion to check get_bot_status first.

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