crates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful semantic distinction that crate contents are recoverable rather than spendable, but says nothing about pagination behavior or how the location data is presented.

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 lines with the resource definition front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is efficient, though 'where to walk to' is colloquial enough to need a beat of interpretation.

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 five-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin — an agent cannot tell what save vs world do, how results are paged, or what a crate record contains beyond a vague 'where to walk to'.

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 only 20% — only as_of is documented. With five parameters (save, as_of, limit, world, offset), the description gives no guidance on what save/world mean, the 25-item cap, or pagination via offset, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names the specific resource (crates on the ground, including death and dismantle crates) and what it returns (contents plus where to walk). That distinguishes it from inventory and collected_from_world, though the verb itself is only implied rather than stated.

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 line 'Recoverable, never spendable stock' implies the use case — recovering items lost to death or dismantling — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many siblings.

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