Eats a recognized food item with high nourishment from inventory to restore hunger and maintain health. Keeps the agent fueled for continued tasks.
Eat the most nourishing recognized food in inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses an auto-selection policy ('most nourishing recognized food') but does not mention what happens if no food is in inventory, whether eating consumes the item, whether hunger must be below maximum, or what result/error the agent should expect.
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 compact sentence with no filler words. Every phrase contributes: 'most nourishing' conveys auto-selection, 'recognized food' limits scope, and 'in inventory' states the source.
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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives the core action and selection behavior but omits important operational details such as failure behavior when no food exists and whether the call returns success or error. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
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 has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and no gap exists.
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 names a specific verb ('Eat') and a specific resource ('the most nourishing recognized food in inventory'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is also clearly distinct from the sibling tools: no other tool covers eating or item consumption.
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 context is implied rather than explicit: the description suggests using this tool when the agent wants to consume food and wants the best option chosen automatically. However, it does not state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as equipping or collecting food.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.