start_game

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.