PadConsole

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the tool "Returns the steps and the link to open," which tells the agent the response shape is procedural content plus an actionable URL — useful context beyond the annotation set, though an output schema also exists.

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, zero filler. The trigger conditions come first and the return behavior is a short trailing clause, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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, optional-parameter read-only helper with 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs to select or call it correctly is missing. Trigger conditions, topic routing, and return content are all accounted for.

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% with both parameters enum-documented and defaults stated, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps natural-language triggers to topics ("friends in different homes" → remote, "what equipment is needed" → devices), which is marginal added value rather than new syntax or constraint detail.

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 states a specific verb (explain) and resource (how PadConsole works), and enumerates the exact user questions it answers: how to start, required equipment/devices, and playing with friends in different homes. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the game-oriented siblings (search_games, recommend_games, etc.), but the help/FAQ nature of the tool is unambiguous.

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?

"Use this when someone asks how to start, what equipment or devices are needed..., or how friends in different homes can play together" gives clear trigger conditions that map directly onto the topic enum values. There are no stated exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it says it returns a description and a link to the game page, and that the id typically comes from another tool (chaining signal).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, with zero filler. Each sentence contributes: when to use it, what it accepts, and what it returns.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no further explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and 100% schema coverage handles the parameters. The description supplies exactly the missing pieces: trigger context and input provenance.

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 both the game and locale parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the locale enum. The description adds only the chaining hint ('id returned by another tool'), which is marginally useful but largely restates the schema's 'Game id ... or title'.

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 ('Get game details' for 'one specific PadConsole game') and enumerates the attributes it answers about (player count, genre, cross-home play). The emphasis on a single specific game implicitly and clearly separates it from search_games and recommend_games, which deal with sets of games.

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?

Explicitly frames the trigger condition ('Use this when someone asks about one specific PadConsole game...') and notes that the input is an id from another tool or a title, which tells the agent how to obtain the argument. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when not to use it.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the output is an ordered, phase-structured playlist with links, and the tool deliberately does not launch a game. It says nothing about latency or how many candidates it draws from, but that is a minor gap.

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: the first front-loads the usage trigger, the second states the artifact and the exclusion. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (when to use it) comes first.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety semantics. Combined with 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: the trigger context, the shape of the result, and the explicit non-behavior.

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 every parameter (kids, locale, remote, minutes, players, occasion) is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only loosely echoes these inputs ('group size, the occasion and the time available') without adding format or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 states a concrete verb and artifact: it 'Builds an ordered PadConsole playlist (warm-up, main games, finale)' constrained by group size, occasion and time. That is clearly distinct from siblings like search_games or get_game_details, and the closing 'Does not start a game' pins down the boundary.

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 opens with an explicit trigger list (game night, house party, birthday, family night, office event, friends in different cities) and adds a when-not clause ('Does not start a game'). What is missing is naming the alternative sibling (e.g. recommend_games) for the case where a full playlist is not wanted, so the routing is clear but not fully cross-referenced.

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 cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the result cap (up to 8), the filter constraint ('only returns games that fit the group size'), the returned fields (player counts and links), and the boundary that it does not launch a game.

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?

Front-loads the trigger conditions, then behavior and the negative boundary in three tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence is a long comma-separated list, which is slightly unwieldy but still purposeful.

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 an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on triggers and scoping. Annotations cover safety, so the only mild gap is the absence of sibling differentiation for disambiguating against search_games and plan_game_night.

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% with enums documented for vibe and locale, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description only echoes 'number of players (and optionally the mood)' without adding format or constraint detail, matching the baseline 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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+resource (recommend games) and adds scope: returns up to 8 matching PadConsole games with player counts and links, filtered to group size. Clear and concrete, but it never names or contrasts with the siblings (search_games, plan_game_night), so the agent must infer the boundary from context alone.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'Use this when...' clause enumerating concrete trigger scenarios (friends/family/kids, TV without console, phone-as-controller party games, remote play). This is strong when-to-use guidance, but it offers no named alternatives or explicit when-not conditions beyond the closing 'Does not start a game.'

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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond them: results come back as PadConsole games with links, and the call does not launch a game. No side effects, auth or rate-limit context is mentioned, but nothing important is missing for a read-only search.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition, followed by the return/constraint sentence; every sentence earns its place. The theme enumeration is long (thirteen examples) and could be trimmed, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile. It covers when to use it, what it searches, and that it has no launch side effect; only explicit sibling routing is absent, so it is nearly complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The theme examples in the description loosely illustrate valid query values (football, racing, horror, quiz), but add no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema.

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 games by theme') and enumerates concrete theme examples so the agent knows the expected query space. It distinguishes the tool from group-size-driven lookup, though it never names a sibling tool like recommend_games or plan_game_night.

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 explicit triggering context: 'Use this when someone asks for a kind of game by theme or keyword rather than by group size.' It also gives a negative boundary ('Does not start a game'), but no explicit statement of when to prefer recommend_games or plan_game_night over this search.

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