get_game_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a data-shaping behavior beyond the schema — raw Japanese `name` fields are stripped while `id` remains the stable key — but says nothing about whether the call mutates state, its cost, or read-only guarantees.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then a single sentence of detail on sanitization, with an example id. Efficient and well-ordered, with only mild redundancy between the parenthetical and the following sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be spelled out, and the description adds the one thing the schema can't convey: that name text is intentionally absent so the agent doesn't treat it as a gap. For a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, lacking only usage context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends its words on output semantics instead.

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+resource ('Get the current game state') and adds scope via the sanitization note. It does not differentiate itself from the other 'get'-style sibling (get_decision_pack), so it stops 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?

The description is entirely about output content and never says when to reach for this tool versus get_decision_pack, end_turn, proceed, or the other siblings. An agent must infer that reading state precedes decisions, but no condition or alternative is named.

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