crates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it explains that both crate types are recoverable, are not spendable stock, and self-delete when emptied, and warns that a spent crate depends on someone walking back. It omits read-only/pagination behavior, but the domain semantics disclosed are substantive and non-obvious.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then incremental caveats in three tight sentences with no filler. Slightly prose-heavy, but every sentence carries 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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the crates' semantics but omits parameter behavior, pagination, and what the rows look like. Adequate on domain meaning, incomplete on invocation detail.

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 description coverage is only 40% (as_of and limit are documented; save, world, and offset are not), so the description needs to compensate and it does not mention parameters at all. An agent gets no guidance on how save, world, or offset scope the results, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.

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 first sentence states a concrete verb and resource: it reports what is in each ground crate and where to walk to reach it. It also distinguishes two subtypes (death crate vs dismantle crate) that an agent would otherwise conflate. It does not name a sibling (e.g. stock/storage) to sharpen the boundary, so it falls short of a 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the warning that crates are 'NEITHER spendable stock' implicitly contrasts this tool with the stock/storage tools. There is no explicit when-to-call, when-not-to-call, or named alternative, so an agent must infer the trigger.

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