Randomly divide players into teams
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of teams (default 2) | |
| teams | No | Alias for count | |
| members | No | Comma-separated names (alternative to array) | |
| players | Yes | Player names |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'randomly' but does not explain how the division is performed (e.g., equal team sizes, handling of leftover players), potential edge cases, or the output format. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no safety annotations.
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 front-loads the core action and resource. There is no unnecessary wording, making it both efficient and easily parsed.
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?
Although the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the description omits critical details such as the return value (what the teams look like), how parameters interact (e.g., count vs. teams alias, members vs. players alternatives), and edge cases. With no output schema, the description should have provided more context but does not.
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% with descriptions for all four parameters (count, teams, members, players). The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already fully documents each parameter, a 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 'Randomly divide players into teams' clearly states a specific verb (divide) and resource (players into teams), distinguishing it from sibling tools like random_player_order, which focuses on ordering rather than grouping. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of the tool's function.
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 clear context that the tool is for dividing players into teams, implying its use in scenarios requiring random team generation. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficient to differentiate from related tools like coin_flip or random_player_order.
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.
