respond_cha

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that cards must contain only your own hand (not the discard pile) and that you must not resubmit after returning 'sent' — a valuable idempotency warning. It omits what happens on revision mismatch or failure handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three dense clauses with no filler, and the phase context is front-loaded. Every sentence adds actionable information; it could be marginally clearer about the 'cards' payload but wastes nothing.

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 game-phase responder with no output schema, the description covers the key things an agent needs: the phase, the participate branch, the cards payload restriction, and the submit-once wait behavior. Only failure/return details are slightly thin, which is acceptable given there is no output schema.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates: it defines participate's semantics (false=forfeit, true=submit) and constrains cards to own hand only, excluding discards. revision is documented in the schema itself, so all three parameters gain meaning.

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 '响应插牌阶段' (respond to the insert-card phase), giving a verb tied to a specific game phase, which distinguishes it from siblings like play_cards or respond_anti_calc. However, '插牌阶段' is unexplained game jargon, so an agent unfamiliar with the rules cannot fully grasp what action is being performed.

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 explains the participate=false (forfeit) vs true (submit cards) branches, which is contextual usage guidance. But it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings like respond_anti_calc or play_cards; the phase is only implied by the tool name.

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