load_game_async

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a risky mutation despite the name 'load'. The description never reconciles this – it reads like a read operation and says nothing about why it is destructive, what state it overwrites, or what permissions the load requires.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the Returns block expands a long flat field list even though the tool has no output schema, and none of the listed fields carry explanation, making it feel like filler rather than structure.

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 destructive async load with no output schema, the description should explain the sync-fallback tradeoff and the destructive behavior implied by annotations, but it only gives an ad-hoc Returns list. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (slot_name and optional user_index with default 0), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 (Load) and resource (SaveGame instance) plus the slot source and the async/sync fallback mechanism, which distinguishes it from the sibling load_game. It leaves 'sync fallback over AsyncLoadGameFromSlot' somewhat cryptic, but the core action is clear.

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?

The description names a mechanism (AsyncLoadGameFromSlot with sync fallback) but gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like load_game, load_game_from_memory, or get_save_game_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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