run_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real behavioral detail: it builds a decision pack, executes advice.plan through Communication Mod, re-resolves hand indices by card id, and returns the pack plus execution log. It also flags a co-op latency quirk. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., advisor availability) or that game state is mutated.

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, followed by mechanism and a timing caveat. Three short sentences with little waste; the parenthetical is informative rather than filler.

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 explaining return values is not required, and the description covers the build-execute-return mechanism well. But for an autonomous mutating tool with no annotations and an unexplained parameter, it omits prerequisites and parameter guidance that an agent would need.

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?

There is one parameter (sleep) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. Since coverage is below 50%, the description was expected to compensate, and it does not, leaving the parameter's meaning and units entirely opaque.

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 scope: 'Autonomously play one combat turn via the advisor.' This distinguishes it from manual siblings like play_card or end_turn by emphasizing a whole autonomous turn. However, it never explicitly names those alternatives, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison against relevant siblings such as get_decision_pack plus send_command, or end_turn. The co-op timing note is behavioral context, not a usage rule.

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