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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the standard is in Polish, includes a local test that mirrors the server's publish test, and covers specific areas like screens, input, social layer, and legal/brand concerns. No contradiction exists.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the critical call-first instruction, then summarizes the standard's contents, then gives usage examples and a completion gate. Each sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to call it, what it returns, what the returned standard contains, that it is in Polish, and how to know when the game is actually done.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter-level detail to add. The description reinforces this by saying 'Read-only, no parameters,' which is sufficient for a schema with an empty properties object.

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 returns the 'studio quality' game production standard and opens with 'CALL THIS FIRST'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the requirements/contract tool rather than a scaffold, form, or publish tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call this before designing or writing any game code, and gives a concrete example: when the user says 'make a battleship game', the agent should not ask about phones, leaderboards, or sound. It also sets the completion condition: do not say 'done' until `klyo-test` passes.

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