DolfDarts Dart Game Encyclopedia

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to explain the payload, and it does: fixed cardinalities, 'with descriptions', 'with labels and page URLs', and 'live game counts'. That is real added context beyond the annotations, though it omits any caveats about count freshness or result size.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action before the colon, then a tight enumeration of return contents. Every clause carries information the agent needs; there is no filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, output-schema-less metadata tool, the description is sufficient: it fully characterizes the returned structure and item counts, and no pagination, auth, or side-effect concerns apply given the annotations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is consistent with the description's implicit claim that this is an unfiltered dump.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') on a specific resource ('the encyclopedia's structure') and enumerates exactly what comes back: categories, mechanics, difficulties, dartboard types, live counts. None of the siblings (list_games, search_games, recommend_games, get_game) do a taxonomy dump, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery/metadata call to make before filtering with list_games or search_games, but the description never says so. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling routing statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result contains structured sections, definitions, and the rules-of-dolf URL.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose and return format front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 no input parameters, no output schema, and clear read-only annotations, the description gives enough context to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly richer about the exact structure of the returned sections, but it is complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description misrepresents the input contract.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the official WDFF rules and scoring for DOLF. It also clarifies the return shape as structured sections plus definitions, which distinguishes it from the general game-browsing siblings.

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 makes clear what the tool is for, but it does not explicitly say when to use it instead of siblings such as get_game or search_games. Usage is implied by the specialized rules focus rather than stated as guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses that board metadata (boardType, boardLabel, boardUrl) and a source URL are embedded in the response, and that section filtering is a token-saving mechanism with core metadata always included.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the field inventory, followed by the optional narrowing behavior. No redundant restatement of the title or name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so concretely, including board fields and the site URL. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error behavior for an unknown slug or whether content is paginated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains that 'sections' narrows content and that core metadata survives filtering, which the schema alone states only tersely. It also signals the slug is a single-game identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the complete record for one dart game by slug') and enumerates exactly what the record contains. This clearly separates it from list_games/search_games, which return multiple games rather than one full record.

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 single-game retrieval and mentions optional section narrowing, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_dolf_rules or get_related_games. Discovery guidance exists only in the schema's slug description, not in the tool description itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context — the relation types that determine results and that dolfdarts.com URLs are included — but says nothing about result count, ordering, or what happens when no related games exist.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the parenthetical relation types placed where they clarify rather than delay. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is close to complete, and it even flags that URLs are part of the payload despite no output schema. Minor gap: no indication of result volume or behavior for games with no relations.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase "a given game" maps to the same idea without adding format, slug-source, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("dart games related to a given game") and defines what 'related' means via three relation types. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling recommend_games, so it falls short of a 5, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you have a game slug and want adjacent games. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance is given, and the closest alternative, recommend_games, is never named or distinguished, leaving the agent to infer the split.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields (slug, name, category, difficulty, URL) since no output schema exists, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether filters combine with AND/OR logic.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the filter scope is front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. Slight gap: no mention of how the five filters combine or of result ordering, which matters for a filtered list across six categories.

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 enums and a minimum/maximum on limit, so the schema already carries all parameter meaning. The description restates the filter dimensions without adding semantics such as whether multiple filters combine or how limit interacts with defaults.

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?

States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('dart games') plus the filter dimensions and the returned fields. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_games or recommend_games, so the agent must infer which listing tool applies.

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 filtered-list use case is implied by 'filtered by category, mechanic, difficulty, and/or featured flag', but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over search_games, recommend_games, or browse_taxonomy. Usage must be inferred from the tool names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape (a reason per item plus boardType, boardLabel, boardUrl and a dolfdarts.com URL) and the ranking rule. It does not mention the default result count, which the schema covers, or any ordering caveats beyond the standard-board rule.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then what comes back, then the one non-obvious ranking rule. The middle sentence is dense but every clause is informative; minor overlap with schema text on boardType.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to describe the returned fields and the ranking logic, which is the critical missing piece. For a read-only 5-parameter recommender this is nearly complete; only the default limit and any tie-breaking beyond board type are left unstated.

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% and the schema already documents limit defaults, the 38 board ids, and the 'omit boardType' ranking behavior, so the description is largely restating structured data. It adds only a soft hint ('most players have the standard board') that is also present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Recommend a ranked shortlist') and resource ('dart games') scoped to a play context. The ranking/personalization framing clearly separates it from the retrieval siblings (list_games, search_games, get_game) without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is implied by the play-context framing (player count, difficulty, time budget, board), but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use search_games instead for X' guidance. The one routing hint given ('when boardType is omitted, standard-board games are ranked first') is about parameter behavior, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry dolfdarts.com URLs and the corpus size, which is useful, but says nothing about result ranking, empty-result behavior, or ordering.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose, parenthetically lists filters, and closes with the return value. No waste; only slightly dense with the parenthetical.

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 no output schema, the description correctly notes what is returned (matching games with URLs). For a read-only search with fully documented parameters, that is nearly complete; ranking and empty-result handling are the only minor omissions.

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%, and the schema already documents every filter's semantics (including playerCount's min ≤ n ≤ max and boardType's rarity note). The description merely restates the filter names, adding no semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search the DolfDarts encyclopedia of dart games) plus the query mechanism and scope (201 games). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_games or recommend_games, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which entry point to pick.

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?

Implies usage by noting that filters are optional and a text query is required, which suggests 'use when you have a keyword.' However, it never says when to prefer this over list_games, browse_taxonomy, or recommend_games, nor any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.