ONE step only. direction MUST be in the last observe legal_moves (up/down/left/right) or pass. Never batch 400 identical moves. Then observe again. pass at most twice in a row.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| direction | Yes | ||
| challenge_handle | Yes | ||
| expected_action_index | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful constraints: each call advances one step, moves are validated against the previous observation, repeated identical actions are discouraged, and pass has a consecutive-use limit. It stops short of describing what a successful action returns or what happens on an invalid move.
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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with every sentence adding a rule or next step. The phrasing is terse and a little fragmented, but there is no wasted prose.
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?
The core action loop is covered, but with no output schema the tool does not describe return values, and the required challenge_handle plus expected_action_index are left unexplained. An agent would still have to infer how to obtain the handle and what the optional index means.
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%, and the description only clarifies direction by tying it to the last observed legal moves. The required challenge_handle and optional expected_action_index parameters are never explained, leaving the agent to guess their role from the schema alone.
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 identifies the action as taking a single step or passing using a direction from the last observation, so an agent can tell it is the labyrinth-movement tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools, but 'ONE step only' and the direction/pass vocabulary make the purpose clear.
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?
It provides explicit procedural guidance: only one step per call, direction must come from the last observe's legal moves, observe again afterward, and pass at most twice in a row. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not name alternative tools or say when not to use this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: entering the labyrinth, performing a single action, listing the board, observing the current state, and sealing the attempt. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, and the descriptions reinforce their unique roles.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (enter, list, observe, seal) with clear object nouns. However, 'labyrinth_action' inverts the order (noun_verb), which is a minor deviation from the otherwise predictable convention.
With 5 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the core game loop and its supporting functions. Every tool is necessary and none feel redundant or extraneous.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the game: entry (enter_open_labyrinth), observation (observe_labyrinth), action (labyrinth_action), external listing (list_open_labyrinths), and conclusion (seal_attempt). No essential operations appear missing for the stated domain.