list_buffs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that buffs affect level-dependent effects but not XP gain, and scopes to food/consumable items. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though could mention if drinks are included.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key purpose: 'Food/consumable buffs that raise a skill LEVEL'. Every sentence 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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the domain (food/consumable), effect (raise skill level), and nuance (not XP). Could mention if it includes all buffs or only active ones, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter (skill filter). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists food/consumable buffs that raise skill levels, and distinguishes from XP gain. It uses specific examples (Farmer's Lunch +3, Trout Soup +1) and contrasts with sibling tools like skill_xp_forecast.

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 for listing level-raising buffs but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Lacks explicit guidance for when to use list_buffs vs. other tools like wiki_page or find_item.

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