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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats 'Read-only' (redundant). However, it adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the kit includes sound that resumes after backgrounding, safe areas, input handling unified, and the constraint 'You write ONLY the gameplay'. These are useful behavioral traits not in the 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 long but front-loaded with the purpose and workflow, then efficiently lists features in a colon-separated list. It includes examples at the end. Every sentence contributes to informing the agent about what the tool returns and when to use it, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing 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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return (two files and the API), the usage sequence, the parameter options, and example queries. It does not specify the exact format of the returned API, but that is likely in the files. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter `rodzaj`, with detailed descriptions of each enum value. The description repeats these explanations and adds a reference game ('Reference game: Battleships'), but this is a minor addition. It does not compensate significantly beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('returns') and resource (two starter files and the kit API) with a clear header 'GAME SKELETON ON KLYO KIT'. It distinguishes itself by explicitly placing it in the workflow: 'call after klyo_game_requirements, before you write code', which separates it from siblings like klyo_game_requirements and klyo_game_sdk.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'call after klyo_game_requirements, before you write code' and includes three example prompts that would trigger this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sequence and examples give clear context for an agent.

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