goody_hut_options

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the trigger condition and that each reward comes with the popup's own description, implying a read-only query. It never explicitly says this is non-mutating or what calling it changes about server state, which is the main residual gap.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the triggering condition before describing the payload. The nested parenthetical interrupt is slightly awkward but carries real information, so nothing is wasted.

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-param options lister with no output schema, the definition supplies the call condition and a sketch of the return (rewards plus descriptions). It omits the natural next step of feeding a choice to choose_goody_hut, which would have made it self-contained.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax the description could add or omit.

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?

It states a specific resource — the goody hut reward options — and grounds it in a concrete game trigger (Shoshone Pathfinder entering ancient ruins). It doesn't name the sibling that consumes this output (choose_goody_hut), so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'when' is explicit: call this when turn_status.pending_popups shows BUTTONPOPUP_CHOOSE_GOODY_HUT_REWARD. However, no alternatives or exclusions are given (e.g. what to do instead if that flag is absent), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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