choose_goody_hut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Take one ruins reward' but does not disclose whether the choice is irreversible, what happens to unselected options, whether it consumes a resource, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the example is embedded efficiently. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives just enough to find the valid input source (goody_hut_options) and an example. It omits behavioral consequences and does not list valid values, so an agent must rely on the sibling tool to complete the picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds a useful example value and points to goody_hut_options as the source of valid strings, but it does not enumerate allowed values or explain the string format beyond the example. It partially compensates, not fully.

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?

States a specific verb ('Take') and resource ('one ruins reward'), and identifies the sibling tool goody_hut_options as the source of the reward. It is clear enough to distinguish from other choose_* siblings, though it could state more explicitly that it selects one of the options returned by goody_hut_options.

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 implies usage: call this after goody_hut_options and pass a valid goody string. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives, but the sibling reference provides contextual guidance.

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