PokerInk Poker Tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/not destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the output shape, and that shape is partly covered by the content it names. It doesn't mention determinism, whether analysis changes with board count, or limits.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation and its outputs compactly. Efficient, though the return enumeration slightly overlaps with what an output schema would carry.

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?

Adequate for a two-param read-only analyzer: schema and annotations carry safety and input semantics. With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it names the return pieces (category, label, draw out counts) but doesn't describe the structure or field names.

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% and both params are documented with examples ('Jh Th', '9h 8h 2c'), so the baseline is 3. The description restates the board range (3-5 cards) but adds no format or syntax 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 (Read/analyze), resource (one Texas Hold'em hand), and exactly what it returns: made hand category/label plus every draw with its out count. Clearly distinct from calculate_equity and calculate_pot_odds, which handle equity and pot odds rather than hand strength.

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 implies when to use it (evaluating a hand on a 3-5 card board), but never explicitly names calculate_equity or calculate_pot_odds as alternatives or states when-not to use it. Usage is inferrable but not spelled out.

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/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing exact computation method (full enumeration for Hold'em, exact postflop Omaha), a deterministic 200,000-board sample preflop, the ±0.2pp error bound, and reproducibility for identical input. That level of precision disclosure is exactly what matters for trusting an analytical result.

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 dense sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded followed by accuracy guarantees. Every clause (enumeration vs sampling, determinism, tolerance) carries distinct 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 still specifies the return values (win, tie, and total equity percentages per hand), the supported game variants, board range, and accuracy limits. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 67% and the schema already documents game defaults, board format, and per-hand card counts. The description adds domain rules (Omaha plays best two of four, four-card hands required) but largely restates the schema's parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource (equity calculation) with exact scope: Texas Hold'em or PLO, 2-4 hands, 0-5 community cards, returning win/tie/equity percentages. The output and input scope make it clearly distinct from calculate_pot_odds and analyze_hand without needing to name 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?

The description implies when the tool applies (evaluating 2-4 known hands over 0-5 known board cards) but never states when to prefer it over calculate_pot_odds or analyze_hand, nor any exclusions such as hand-count limits beyond the schema. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by stating the computation is exact over unseen cards rather than the Rule of 2 and 4 approximation (citing ~6 points error on a 15-out draw). It also discloses what output changes when outs is omitted, though it does not describe output shape in detail.

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 decision and returns, then justified with the formula and accuracy caveats. Four sentences with parenthetical examples are dense but each supports the 'use this instead of arithmetic' claim; slightly long but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return values (pot odds, break-even equity, exact hit chance, call/fold verdict). The conditional behavior of outs/street is spelled out, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented and a 3 is the baseline. The description goes beyond the schema by tying pot and bet together via the break-even formula (call/(pot+bet+call), pot-sized=33.3%, half-pot=25%) and noting that implied_extra lowers the required equity, adding cross-parameter 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?

States a specific decision ('decide whether calling a bet is profitable') plus the exact outputs (pot odds, break-even equity, chance of hitting, verdict). It is clearly separable from analyze_hand (out counting) and calculate_equity (equity), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent to use this instead of manual arithmetic, quantifies why (bet/(pot+bet) overstates the break-even share), explains when outs can be omitted (price only, no verdict), and names analyze_hand as the companion for out counts. When-to-use and the alternative are both covered.

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