quests

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes what the tool returns for each quest type, including item counts across all containers, the `completable_now` flag, and progress counters. It also explains the research parameter's effect.

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 concise: two sentences front-load the main purpose and detail, with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides substantial context about what is returned (quest details, counts, flags). It lacks explicit mention of the output structure or format, but is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that research fetches wiki context (infobox for items, wiki search for quest title) and clarifying save_path behavior for default saves.

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 that the tool returns 'every player's active quest journal + the special-orders board' and details what information is provided for different quest types (item delivery/harvest/resource, monster/fishing/socialize). This distinguishes it from siblings by being the primary quest status tool.

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 explains when to use the tool (to view active quests and check completion readiness) and the optional research parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but given the sibling list, no alternative tool exists for this purpose.

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