get_game_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it lists returned fields (state_id, detected mode, complete state), states that auto detects singleplayer/co-op, and notes the tool works at menus as well as during a run.

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 four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes: what is read, what is returned, when to read again, and how mode/menu behavior works.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return contents, usage timing, and mode behavior adequately. It could say more about what state_id is used for, but that is a minor gap for this complexity level.

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% for the single mode parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'auto' detects singleplayer/co-op, which adds meaning beyond the enum, but it does not clarify the explicit singleplayer or multiplayer values or when a caller should override the default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the resource precisely: current screen, player, cards, enemies, intents, and visible options. It also states what is returned, making the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishable from action-oriented siblings like take_action.

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?

It gives clear usage context: read again after each action and works at menus as well as during a run. However, it does not explicitly name when to use alternatives like take_action or health_check, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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