get_inventory

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

There are no annotations to indicate read-only or side-effect behavior. The description says 'View' which implies no mutation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it describe the response format, potential errors, or any limits.

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 that is clear and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary detail and presents the key clarification about the inventory contents efficiently.

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 simple read-only inventory tool, the description is fairly complete but lacks explicit confirmation of read-only behavior and any information about the response structure. Since there is no output schema, additional detail about what is returned would improve completeness.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter, api_key, with the description 'Your Crowns API key'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'View' and clearly identifies the resource as the user's inventory. It further clarifies that the inventory consists of buildings from treasure rewards, which distinguishes it from building placement or other inventory-related tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like place_building or clarify when inventory viewing is appropriate.

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