extract_items

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the agent may walk within reach and that items are transferred into inventory, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the extraction is destructive, how queuing/jobs work, or what happens if the entity has insufficient items or the inventory is full.

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 one compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core operation, then adds the two selection modes and the movement note, all in a natural order that supports quick agent comprehension.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, and while the output schema exists, the description does not mention key behavioral context such as job queuing, wait_s/replace semantics, or possible side effects. The core invocation path is clear, but a fully informed agent would need to infer job-related behavior from parameter descriptions rather than from tool-level guidance.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw parameter definitions. It clarifies the relationship between the items parameter and all=true ('specific counts, or all=true'), which is not obvious from defaults alone. It also adds the agent movement behavior associated with the location parameters. wait_s and replace are already well documented in the 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 the action: take items out of the entity at a coordinate and put them into the agent's inventory. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling insert_items by the direction of transfer. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or name the most similar sibling, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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 description gives operational guidance: use specific counts or set all=true, and the agent may walk within reach. But it does not state when this tool should be used over alternatives such as mine, insert_items, or inspect_entity, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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