auto_assemble

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It explains the core injection mechanism and the enable/disable control, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., potential crashes), prerequisites (e.g., process_attach), and error handling. The description is informative but not comprehensive.

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 with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a brief usage note and a well-formatted example. No extraneous content, though the example is moderately long.

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 (code injection), the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description covers the core operation but omits important context like required process attachment, potential for game crashes, or relationship to scanning tools (e.g., scan_aob for finding addresses).

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'enable' parameter's effect and default behavior, and provides a complete script example illustrating the 'script' parameter. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify script syntax requirements.

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 runs a Cheat Engine Auto Assembler script for code-injection cheats, with specific examples like godmode and infinite ammo. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'assemble' and 'disassemble' by focusing on full scripts rather than single instructions.

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 explains when to use the enable flag (enable=True for activation, enable=False for reversion via [DISABLE] section). It provides a concrete example skeleton, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like lua_execute or other scripting tools.

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