send_command

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the raw/format-sensitive nature of the input and the 1-based/0-based index conventions, which is useful behavior context, but says nothing about what happens on malformed commands, error responses, or side effects of game-state-mutating commands like PLAY or POTION.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the command grammar earns its space since the schema documents nothing. Only quibble is that the 'prefer dedicated tools' selection cue would be better placed before the long grammar, since it affects whether the agent uses this tool at all.

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 values need no explanation, and the input contract is fully specified. The remaining gap is failure behavior for invalid or out-of-range command lines, which an agent calling a raw escape-hatch command would benefit from knowing.

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 0% for the single 'line' parameter, so the description must carry everything — and it does: a full grammar for each command plus the critical indexing conventions (PLAY hand 1-based, enemy 0-based). This is exactly the compensating detail the schema omits.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Send a raw Communication Mod command line') and immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming play_card/end_turn/choose/proceed as preferred alternatives. The enumerated command grammar makes the scope unambiguous, though 'Communication Mod' is jargon an agent must already know.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to prefer dedicated tools and why ('easier to get right'), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of saying when this tool IS the right choice (e.g., for POTION, KEY, CLICK, WAIT, START which have no dedicated sibling), leaving that to inference from the command list.

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