ro_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' conveys a non-destructive snapshot operation and the sentence lists what data comes back, which covers the core behavior. It does not disclose staleness/latency semantics or whether the return is a one-shot snapshot, but for a simple read tool the essential trait (read-only, live) is stated.

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 clean sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before listing contents. No wasted words; the only slight inefficiency is the run-on enumeration ('character stats and position'), but it remains efficient and readable.

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 0-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description lists all the major data categories an agent needs to know it returns (connection, map, stats, position, nearby entities). The only gap is the absence of return-format/structure details, which would require an output schema or additional description, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor shortfall.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-param tool benchmarks at baseline 4; there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Read') plus a concrete resource ('the live game state') and enumerates the contents: connection, map, character stats and position, and nearby NPCs/monsters. This clearly distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings (ro_walk, ro_attack, ro_warp) and the dialog tools.

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 reading/scoping nature of the tool makes its place among siblings clear by implication (inspect state before acting), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use this to check state before choosing an action,' which would have helped.

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