Tuper games

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds only that it returns rules plus move format, but says nothing about whether the game must already exist, whether this is static documentation, or how the move format is expressed.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the returned content. Its terseness is a coverage problem rather than a verbosity problem.

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?

With one required, undocumented parameter, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description needs to explain how to identify the game and what the returned rules/move format look like. It gestures at the return contents but leaves the parameter unresolved.

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 single required parameter 'game' is documented nowhere. The phrase 'of one game' hints the parameter selects a single game, but it does not say whether the value is an ID, a name, or one of the values returned by list_games.

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 fragment names the resource (rules and move format of a game), which is more specific than the title 'Game rules', and it implicitly distinguishes itself from make_move and list_games. However, there is no verb and no explicit statement of what the tool does (retrieve? describe?), leaving the purpose only implied.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this versus siblings like list_games or get_state, and no preconditions are stated. The agent must infer that this is a lookup to perform before make_move.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by listing the returned fields in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention pagination, error behavior for invalid session ids, or whether state is live vs. cached.

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?

One compact fragment with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the returned fields. It is slightly telegraphic (no verb) but nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing structured data lacks: what the response contains. It is nearly complete, missing only failure behavior for a bad session id.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains that it is a session id from new_game. The description adds no additional syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a concrete resource (session state) and enumerates exactly what is returned: board, score, status, legal_moves. That clearly separates it from make_move and new_game, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: call this to see where a session stands. There is no statement of when to prefer it over siblings such as get_rules or list_games, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add scope. It adds the phrase 'games you can play through this server,' which narrows the resource to playable game types, but says nothing about the return shape or whether active in-progress games 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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the resource being listed is front-loaded. There is nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back (game names? identifiers to pass to new_game?). It does not, leaving a real gap for a discovery tool that likely feeds a follow-up call, though the zero-parameter surface keeps the overall risk low.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. No undocumented inputs exist to mislead the agent.

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 (list) and resource (games), and the qualifier 'you can play through this server' hints that it enumerates playable game types rather than active sessions. That distinction against siblings like new_game and get_state is implied rather than stated, so an agent must infer it.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named. The usage is only implied: discover what games exist before calling new_game. The agent must reconstruct that workflow itself.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose that the tool returns ok, event or error, plus the new state. It still leaves important mutation details implicit, such as validation failure behavior, side effects, and whether the state change is atomic.

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 a single compact sentence pair with the action front-loaded, followed by valid move sources and return behavior. Every clause adds actionable information without redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, valid move source, and basic return/error shape. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about how errors are represented and what event contains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by identifying that a valid move comes from legal_moves or a move family in also_legal, which helps the agent source the move object correctly.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Apply one move' with a move object. It clearly implies this is the move-execution tool among siblings like new_game, get_state, and get_rules, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 tells the agent that the move must come from legal_moves or a move family described in also_legal, which is useful input guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to invoke this tool versus alternatives or discuss prerequisites such as having an active session.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals what is returned (session id and first state with legal_moves), but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid game name, what level or seed change affect, or whether re-starting a session invalidates a prior one.

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 short sentences with no waste, and the return-value information is placed immediately after the purpose statement.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. Only minor gaps remain around error cases and the relationship to sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents game, seed, and level (including that seed yields a reproducible session and level defaults to 1). The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Start a new session of a game") and names the concrete artifact returned (session id plus first state). It is clearly distinct from get_state, make_move, and list_games, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention that this must precede make_move/get_state. The workflow role is only implied by "start a new session."

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