assert_game_state

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as how assertions are evaluated (e.g., fail-fast vs. all-at-once), error handling, or return values. The description only restates the tool's purpose without adding transparency beyond the name.

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, concise sentence. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved with a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 (nested array parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the assertions work, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. An agent would lack critical information to use this tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each property (path, expected, operator, property) already defined. The tool description does not add further semantic value beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Assert multiple game state conditions simultaneously'. It uses a specific verb ('assert') and resource ('game state conditions'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like assert_node_state, assert_screen_text, and assert_visual_match by focusing on game state rather than node-specific or visual aspects.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. While the name and description imply it is for game state assertions (as opposed to node-specific assertions), it does not specify alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is implied 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.