observe

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: unknown profiles are reported, hidden information such as deck order and seeds is excluded, and server_time is wall-clock metadata rather than thinking time. Some phrases remain ambiguous, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences add relevant constraints without obvious padding. Some wording is dense and jargon-heavy, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 state-observation tool with an output schema and strong read-only annotations, the description covers observation scope and data exclusions well. It is incomplete because it omits any explanation of the view parameter, which is the only input an agent must choose.

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% and the single parameter "view" is never mentioned or explained in the description. With no schema-level description to compensate, the description should clarify what view values mean or what compact/default does, but it does not.

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 and resource: "Read the player-visible state of the current identified native profile." It also clarifies scope by excluding hidden information. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as action_status or act, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the game-observation context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like action_status or act. The mention that server_time is usable for run timing is a partial usage clue, but not a routing rule.

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