checkInventory

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

The description only mentions 'check', implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify inventory or disclose any other behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to add relevant context.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of items, count) or how it relates to similar sibling tools. The agent is left with insufficient context for effective use.

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?

There are no parameters in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter information. According to calibration rules, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist.

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 verb 'check' and resource 'the player inventory', making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'inventoryDetails', which could have a similar function, so it loses some points for lack of distinction.

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?

No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inventoryDetails' or other inspection tools. The agent receives no context on appropriate usage scenarios.

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