Compute field of view from a hex position
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Origin Q coordinate | |
| r | Yes | Origin R coordinate | |
| game | No | Game context for obstacle lookup | |
| seed | No | Map seed | |
| range | Yes | Vision range in hexes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose how obstacles or map seeds affect the result, what the return format is, or whether this is a read-only operation. The one-line description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the limited information it conveys.
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 tool has 5 parameters, optional game/seed context, and no output schema. The description is too terse to be complete; it omits key details about obstacle handling, return format, and how optional parameters affect behavior. For a tool with this complexity, a richer description is expected.
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 meaningful parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Origin Q coordinate', 'Vision range in hexes'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
The description 'Compute field of view from a hex position' uses a specific verb ('compute') and identifies the resource ('field of view from a hex position'). It is distinct from sibling tools like hex_pathfind and hex_generate_map, though it could more explicitly state the output scope (e.g., visible hex set).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hex_pathfind or hex_get_info. The optional 'game' and 'seed' parameters hint at obstacle-aware FOV, but the description does not explain the intended context or exclusions.
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.
Most tools have clear prefixes (chess_, play_, hex_, oracle_, rpg_, ti4_) that separate concerns, but overlap exists between deprecated chess_* tools and the newer play_* equivalents, plus rpg_random_encounter and oracle_encounter both generate encounters. Descriptions help disambiguate, but the redundancy could mislead agents.
Many tools follow a domain_verb_noun pattern (hex_generate_map, play_get_moves, rpg_search_entities), but there are notable exceptions like dice_roll, game_deck_create, jam_status, and random_player_order that mix noun-first and verb-last conventions. The inconsistent ordering makes it harder to predict tool names.
81 tools is excessive even for a broad games toolkit; the deprecated chess_* tools alone add unnecessary bulk. While the scope is wide, the count exceeds practical limits and could be consolidated into fewer, more focused tools.
The toolkit covers a wide variety of game needs: dice, cards, hex maps, chess, RPGs, TI4, jam management, and galleries. Minor gaps like the score tracker lacking a retrieval method and the absence of some lifecycle operations keep it from being perfect, but core workflows are well covered.
