Generate a hex map for a specific game and player count
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game type (nukes, colony, catan, age-of-steam, eclipse, twilight-imperium) | |
| seed | No | Random seed for reproducibility | |
| size | No | Map size (default: game default) | |
| players | No | Number of players (default: 2) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what the tool returns, any side effects, randomness/determinism beyond the seed parameter, or output format. The schema mentions 'Random seed for reproducibility' but the description itself adds no transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action and key modifiers efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Despite having only 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to describe the return value or the effect of generating a map, which is critical for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The schema covers inputs but not outputs, and the description does not fill that gap.
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% as all 4 parameters have descriptions. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by highlighting game and player count, but does not explain parameter formats or defaults beyond what the schema already states.
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 says 'Generate a hex map for a specific game and player count', which is a specific verb (Generate) + resource (hex map) + scope (specific game and player count). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hex_export_svg (exporting) and hex_get_info (getting info) by clearly indicating a new map generation action.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention contexts like 'Use hex_get_info for existing maps' or 'Use hex_export_svg to convert maps', leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the action itself.
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.
