show_game_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions animation and retry options, but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., posts a message, updates UI), potential side effects (e.g., channel notifications), permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence in French that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying key features (animation, retry option) without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with many parameters but clear functionality.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what the tool outputs (e.g., a message ID, embed object), behavioral details (e.g., interactive elements, user feedback), and how it integrates with other tools. For a display tool with rich parameters, more guidance on usage and effects is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'isSuccess' triggers different animations and 'showRetry' controls UI elements. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like parameter interactions or examples.

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 tool's purpose: 'Afficher un résultat de jeu avec animation de réussite/échec et option de recommencer' (Display a game result with success/failure animation and retry option). It specifies the verb ('Afficher'), resource ('résultat de jeu'), and key features (animation, retry option). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_interactive_quiz' or 'deploy_rpg', which might also handle game outcomes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after a game ends), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time updates), or comparisons to siblings like 'creer_embed' or 'update_embed' that might handle similar display tasks. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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