rules_scenario

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning coverage of priority, stack, state-based actions, triggers, and rule citations, which goes beyond what annotations offer.

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 concise (3 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no waste.

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 has no output schema, but the description hints at output including rule citations. For a complex scenario resolver, it could specify output structure more, but overall it is adequate given the annotations and simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'resolve', the resource 'game scenario', and the scope 'step-by-step using MTG rules' with specific coverage of priority, stack, etc. It distinguishes from siblings like 'keyword_explain' or 'rules_interaction' by focusing on scenario resolution.

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 implies usage for resolving game scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rules_interaction' or 'rules_lookup'. No exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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