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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation action ('click') but doesn't explain what happens behaviorally—whether it reveals cells, triggers mines, affects game state, or has side effects. This leaves critical gameplay behavior unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and target. It's front-loaded with essential information and has no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, parameter meanings, error conditions, and integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in Minesweeper gameplay.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'row' and 'col' implicitly via 'cell', but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., zero-indexed coordinates, valid ranges, or board boundaries), failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('click') and target resource ('a cell on the Minesweeper board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'flag' or 'unflag' which also interact with board cells, missing full sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'flag' or 'unflag', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an active game started with 'start_game'. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether it's reversible with 'unflag', if it affects game state like mine count, or if there are constraints like board limits). This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a game interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral details, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'a cell' but doesn't clarify what 'row' and 'col' represent (e.g., zero-indexed coordinates, board boundaries). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Place a flag') and the target ('at a cell on the Minesweeper board'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unflag' or 'click', which would require mentioning that this marks a cell as potentially containing a mine rather than revealing it or removing a flag.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'click' or 'unflag'. It lacks context about game state prerequisites (e.g., only on unrevealed cells) or strategic advice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Start a new game') but lacks behavioral details such as what happens to an existing game (if any), whether this requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome looks like (e.g., game state initialization). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'starting a game' entails behaviorally (e.g., board generation, difficulty settings, or return values), which is needed since there's no output schema to clarify 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it doesn't add or detract from what the schema provides.

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 action ('Start') and the resource ('a new game of Minesweeper'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'click', 'flag', or 'unflag', but the verb 'Start' implies a distinct initialization function versus interaction functions.

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 implies usage at the beginning of a Minesweeper session to initialize a game, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whether it resets an existing game or requires certain conditions). The context is clear from the tool name and description, but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a safe operation, what happens if no flag exists, or if it affects game state. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral nuances, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'cell' but doesn't explain what 'row' and 'col' represent (e.g., zero-indexed coordinates, board boundaries), adding minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 action ('Remove the flag') and the target ('at a cell on the Minesweeper board'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'flag' (which presumably adds flags), missing full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'click' or 'flag'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a flag must exist at the cell) or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.

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