Get info about a specific hex coordinate (terrain, neighbours, distance)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Hex Q coordinate (column) | |
| r | Yes | Hex R coordinate (row) | |
| game | No | Game context for terrain lookup | |
| seed | No | Map seed (to look up terrain from a generated map) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral semantics. It states the action 'Get info' (implying read-only), but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether game/seed are needed for terrain lookup), the exact return structure, or side effects. This is insufficient for an unannotated 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core function and relevant details, with no superfluous words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description partially addresses return contents (terrain, neighbours, distance) but leaves gaps: 'distance' is ambiguous (distance to what?), and the optional parameters game and seed are not explained in terms of necessity or impact. The tool is simple but not fully specified.
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 descriptions for all parameters exist. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond listing the output fields (terrain, neighbours, distance), which does not directly explain parameter behavior. Baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving info about a specific hex coordinate, listing the exact data (terrain, neighbours, distance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hex_pathfind or hex_compute_fov, which focus on other aspects.
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 use when one needs coordinate-based hex info, but it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like hex_pathfind or hex_compute_fov. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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.
