feel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: it measures but does not save, setup steps are not measured until they and one frame have run, and movements during other steps are reported separately as facts. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or performance limits, so it stops short of fully transparent.

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 and the content is dense with relevant detail, but the description is long and runs several ideas together in extended clauses. It could be tightened without losing meaning, especially around the `interact` alternative and measurement timing.

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 complex measurement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about what is measured, when measurement starts, and what is not saved. It still does not describe the exact return shape or error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning about how `steps` work as setup plus inputs and how `frames` controls the watched window. It also clarifies the default frame count behavior in context, though it does not add much beyond the schema field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it measures game feel by watching how the page reacts to events, including camera shake, scale pops, teleports, particles, HUD ticks, and sounds. It also distinguishes itself from `interact` by explaining that `feel` measures and saves nothing, while `interact` with `expect` and `save` is used to keep the play as a check.

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?

Explains exactly when and how to use it: leading `{ state }` steps set the scene, measurement begins only after those steps and one frame have run, and teleports are defined as jumps between two watched frames. It also names the alternative workflow explicitly, sending the same steps to `interact` when the goal is to save or check the play.

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