poker_proposeTransform

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. The description only states that it 'proposes' transformations, which implies a non-destructive, suggestion-making operation, but doesn't clarify if this creates a draft, requires approval, affects system state, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 Japanese ('回転・移動変換を提案します') that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its brevity.

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 complexity of transformation operations (with nested objects for operations) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after proposing (e.g., whether a transformation object is created, returned, or requires further steps), nor does it provide context about the transformation domain (e.g., 3D geometry, physics simulations). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full role.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (name and operations). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as 'proposes rotation/movement transformations' which is clear but vague. It uses a specific verb ('proposes') and identifies the resource ('transformations'), but doesn't specify what is being transformed or distinguish it from sibling tools like poker_proposeBody or poker_proposeZone. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the transformation context.

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. There are multiple sibling tools with 'propose' in their names (e.g., poker_proposeBody, poker_proposeZone), but no indication is given about when to propose a transformation versus proposing other entities. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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