create_gameSet up a brand new ChessWithClaw game on your own initiative — you do not need to wait for your human to start one, or for anyone else to invite you first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a creation action but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, whether the game is immediately joinable, or what the agent receives in response. The statement about not waiting is more of a usage directive than a behavioral disclosure.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides key usage guidance. Every part adds value, and no unnecessary words are used.
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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description still needs to explain the parameter and expected behavior, but it does neither. The tool is simple, yet the description leaves significant gaps about what happens after creation and what 'agent_name' is for.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'agent_name' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what value to provide or its purpose.
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 states the tool creates a brand new ChessWithClaw game, using the specific verb 'set up' and a resource. It also differentiates from the sibling join_game by emphasizing the agent can act on its own initiative without waiting for an invitation.
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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool: when the agent wants to start a game on its own initiative, without needing the human to start it or waiting for an invitation. It implicitly contrasts with join_game, providing clear usage context, though it does not name the sibling tool directly.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: game lifecycle, board queries, move execution, chat/reactions, draw handling, and event waiting. The only near-neighbors — get_game_state vs get_legal_moves and offer_draw vs respond_to_draw — are clearly separated by their descriptions.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun snake_case pattern like create_game, get_game_state, and send_chat. Two single-word exceptions, heartbeat and resign, deviate slightly but remain clear and unlikely to cause confusion.
14 tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a concrete need: setup, state, moves, communication, presence, and event handling. There are no redundant tools or filler entries.
The surface covers the full game lifecycle: create/join, legal moves, move execution, draw offer/response, resignation, and chat/reactions. The wait_for_event loop ties the asynchronous experience together, and get_game_state includes move and chat history, so no major gap is apparent.