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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context — the standard's text is in Polish, it requires no parameters, and it is a prerequisite rather than a result-producing call. It does not describe size/format of the returned document or any pagination/truncation behavior, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 imperative 'CALL THIS FIRST' is correctly front-loaded, but the body is one dense run-on paragraph that enumerates the entire contents of the standard, including a long parenthetical about the free-asset catalogue. That inventory is partly useful orientation and partly padding; it could be trimmed without losing routing value.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so thoroughly — listing the standard's sections and noting the Polish language of the text. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this call is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description confirms this explicitly ('Read-only, no parameters'), so there is no ambiguity for the caller, though there is little semantic content to add beyond that.

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 — returns the 'studio quality' production standard — and enumerates exactly what that standard contains (screens, input, game loop, assets, test loop, release stages). 'CALL THIS FIRST' immediately distinguishes it from siblings like klyo_game_scaffold, klyo_fix_game and klyo_game_diagnostics, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precedence rule ('CALL THIS FIRST, before you design or write a single line of a game for klyo') plus concrete triggering examples ('Make me a battleship game'). It also closes the loop by stating the exit condition ('Do not say done until klyo-test passes'), so the agent knows both when to open this and when it has satisfied it.

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