gameforge_query_codex

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses only the word "embedded," hinting at a local knowledge base. It says nothing about whether this is read-only, what kind of results come back (documents? snippets? citations?), or whether the query must be natural language vs. keywords.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is room to add a clause on query form and return type without bloating.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undescribed parameter, the description should explain what gets returned and in what shape. It does neither, so an agent cannot predict the result of calling 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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no guidance on what to put in it — search phrase, question, topic keyword, or entity name. The parameter name alone does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

It has a specific verb and resource ("Query" + "GameForge Technical Art & Engine Studio Codex"), so the agent knows it interrogates some knowledge base. But the resource is opaque — nothing says what the Codex contains or how it differs from the many sibling generation/export tools. Adequate minimum, clear gaps.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Given 24 siblings with overlapping-sounding names, the agent has no signal about when to consult the Codex versus calling gameforge_discover_ecosystem or gameforge_audit_asset_consistency.

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