GameShipKit

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

With only readOnlyHint=true supplied, the description does add real context: the Pro plan requirement and that the call returns file text plus warnings. However, the opening verb 'Write' is ambiguous against readOnlyHint and is only disambiguated indirectly by 'Returns the file text'; the description never explicitly states that nothing is persisted, which is the key behavioral fact for a generation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return behavior, then the access prerequisite. No filler. The only deduction is that the ambiguous 'Write' phrasing costs a beat of interpretation rather than being stated cleanly.

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 single-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (file text and warnings) and the plan prerequisite. The remaining gaps are the write-vs-generate distinction and entry-shape guidance, both minor given the nested schema descriptions.

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 single top-level parameter has 0% schema coverage, but its nested fields carry their own descriptions and enums. The description partially compensates by naming the networks (mapping 'Meta Audience Network' to the 'meta' enum value) and flagging 'custom lines', which corresponds to the custom network plus domain/cert. It still says nothing about the entries array shape, required network/id pairing, or DIRECT/RESELLER defaults.

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 pair ('Write and check') tied to a concrete resource ('an app-ads.txt file for mobile ad networks') and enumerates the supported networks. An agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not differentiate against siblings, but those siblings (palette, xp_curve, store_link) are unrelated utilities, so the practical ambiguity is low.

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 supplies one useful precondition, 'Needs GameShipKit Pro', which tells the agent an entitlement gate exists. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, so selection guidance is only implied by the resource name.

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 covers the safety profile, and the description stays consistent with it — every action is a read/transform. It adds real context beyond the annotations: that the palettes are a fixed built-in set (so no arbitrary palette ids exist) and that convert emits one of three concrete output formats, partly compensating for the absent output schema.

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 paragraph, front-loaded with the resource, then three tight action clauses. The inline action/description pairs are efficient, though the run-on structure with quoted action names mid-sentence reads slightly denser than necessary.

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 4-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what each action does, what get can return, and what convert produces. The remaining gap is error/invalid-input behavior and the exact shape of a converted result, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 50%, so the baseline is 3, and the description roughly meets that bar: it names the concrete palettes behind the opaque ids (pico-8, sweetie-16, etc.), the accepted input forms for colors, and the output formats for format. However, it does not say what happens with an unknown name, whether the .gpl input must be a full file body, or how colors maps to format when defaults apply.

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 the resource (game colour palettes) and enumerates the three distinct operations it performs — list, get, convert — with concrete examples of each (PICO-8, Sweetie 16, GIMP .gpl). An agent can tell this apart from every listed sibling (app_ads_txt, search_tools, store_link, xp_curve), none of which touch palettes.

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 mapping of each action value to an outcome effectively tells the agent which action to pick for a given need: list for discovery, get for a known palette, convert for transforming pasted data. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but no sibling overlaps in scope, so the implied routing is unambiguous.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds what the call yields ('names, short descriptions and links'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not disclose result count limits, ranking, or pagination, and the 'leave empty to list everything' behaviour is stated only in the schema, not here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scope, then return shape, then the routing instruction. Every clause contributes; nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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-optional-parameter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, coverage area, return contents and intended use. Only minor operational details (how many results, ordering, whether a richer result is available) are absent, which is a small gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the single query parameter is fully documented there, including a concrete example ('remove checkerboard background') and the empty-string case. The description adds no additional meaning about query syntax, matching behaviour, or result breadth, so the 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 ('Search the GameShipKit catalogue of browser tools for game developers') and enumerates the covered domains (sprites, AI art cleanup, audio, store assets, economy, dialogue, rigging). This is plainly a discovery/retrieval tool, which distinguishes it at a glance from the concrete sibling utilities app_ads_txt, palette, store_link and xp_curve.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use it to point the user to the right tool for a task,' which establishes it as the routing tool when the right concrete tool is unknown. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as the destination or saying when not to search (e.g. when the user already named a specific tool).

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?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with link generation. The description adds the entitlement requirement (Pro plan) and the output cardinality (one link per source), plus store-specific encoding (UTM in the referrer parameter, ct/pt for App Store) — genuinely useful context beyond the annotation. It stops short of saying whether links are persisted or just computed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core action, then store variants, then the limiting constraint. No filler and no repetition of the title or schema text.

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 sketch the return shape — "one link per traffic source" does that adequately, and the Pro entitlement is disclosed. Minor gaps remain: no default behavior for campaign/content, and no statement about whether the call only generates links or also registers them.

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 50%: target, sources, and provider_token are already documented in the schema, while content and campaign have no description anywhere. The description does add value by explaining which tokens apply to which store (referrer UTM for Play, ct/pt for App Store), but leaves content and campaign unexplained, so it neither regresses below nor rises far above the baseline.

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?

"Build tracked store links" is a specific verb+resource, and the description enumerates the four supported targets (Google Play, App Store, Steam, any web page) so an agent immediately knows the scope. Siblings (app_ads_txt, palette, search_tools, xp_curve) are unrelated, so no disambiguation is needed.

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?

"One link per traffic source" and "Needs GameShipKit Pro" give real usage constraints and a prerequisite that would otherwise cause a failed call. It does not name any alternative tool or state when-not-to-use, but no sibling overlaps this function.

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?

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses the GameShipKit Pro access requirement and describes the returned content and representation choices. It does not cover errors, limits, or precise calculation and rounding behavior, but nothing conflicts with the read-only annotation.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then explain the outputs, and finally state the access prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant procedural wording.

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 definition is sufficient for a basic call using the supplied defaults, enums, and ranges, and it usefully summarizes the result because no output schema is provided. However, exact curve formulas, linear-style behavior, rounding semantics, and result structure remain unspecified, leaving gaps for a six-parameter generator with limited schema descriptions.

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 only 33%, and the description does little to fill that gap: it adds no guidance for style, growth, levels, round_to, or first_level_xp. Its discussion of table, GDScript, C#, and JSON mostly restates the format enum, although ready-to-paste output and the per-level/total explanation add some meaning.

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 action and resource: creating a level-up XP table for RPG or idle games, containing per-level and cumulative XP. The supported output formats make its role concrete and clearly distinguish it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 RPG/idle-game context and ready-to-paste code options provide clear situations in which to use it, while the Pro requirement establishes a prerequisite. It does not state when not to use it or identify an alternative, so it stops short of explicit comparative routing.

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