flag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this action is reversible (e.g., via 'unflag'), has side effects like ending the game if incorrect, or requires specific game states. It only describes the basic action without operational context.

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, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, 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 complexity (a game action with potential side effects), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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% description coverage, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'cell' but doesn't explain what 'row' and 'col' parameters represent (e.g., zero-indexed coordinates, board limits), leaving their semantics unclear beyond the schema's basic types.

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 target ('at a cell on the Minesweeper board'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unflag' or 'click', which would require mentioning it's for marking suspected mines versus revealing cells.

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', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an active game. It only states what the tool does, not the context for its use.

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