bpb_choose_survival

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says whether this mutates game state, whether entering survival is irreversible or consumes a resource, what happens to the run on 'stop', or what the call returns. For a tool that appears to launch or terminate a survival run, that is a substantial gap.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the scope ('10-win prompt') before the per-choice mapping. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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?

The tool is simple (one enum parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description is close to sufficient for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the missing pieces are the state-change consequences and the return behavior, which an agent needs before committing to 'survival' versus 'stop'.

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 0%, so the enum values 'survival' and 'stop' would otherwise be bare labels. The description supplies their meaning by mapping each to the equivalent sibling tool, which is genuine added semantics beyond the schema. It still does not explain what those sibling actions do, so the mapping is referential rather than self-contained.

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 that this tool unifies handling of the '10-win prompt' and maps each choice to a concrete sibling tool (choice=survival → bpb_enter_survival, choice=stop → bpb_stop_here). That makes the routing role distinguishable from the two siblings it names. It stops short of describing the actual outcome of either branch, so the verb is clear but the effect is not.

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 names the triggering situation (the 10-win prompt) and explicitly identifies the two alternatives each choice resolves to, which is exactly the routing context an agent needs. It does not say whether an agent should prefer this dispatcher over calling bpb_enter_survival or bpb_stop_here directly, leaving that inference to the caller.

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