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

The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: 'Immediately', 'up to 20 steps', 'stops on uncertainty', and the optional Act 1 boss stop are meaningful traits. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose whether the tool mutates irreversible game state or what happens when it stops, which is a notable gap for an action-taking 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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and appends the relevant stopping conditions. Every clause adds useful information, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no required arguments, and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and stopping conditions reasonably well. It omits important context such as mutation/side-effect expectations and explicit differentiation from step_once, which is more consequential given the absence of annotations.

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. 'up to 20 steps' plausibly describes the batch_size boundation, and 'optional Act 1 boss clear' clearly maps to stop_after_act_one_boss. Still, batch_size is never named, and the relationship between the 20-step cap and the batch_size parameter is left implicit.

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 ('Immediately continue') and the resource ('Ironclad decisions and legal actions'), with concrete bounds ('up to 20 steps') and stopping conditions. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from one-step tools by its multi-step scope, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use autoplay versus alternatives like step_once, execute_proposal, or recommend_next_action. The description implies a batch/autonomous use case but does not state when not to use it or what preconditions must be met.

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. It discloses the dry-run default and the no-retry-on-timeout behavior, which are useful. However, it doesn't state whether the action is destructive, what happens on illegal proposals, or the nature of the response, leaving gaps.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. The dry-run and timeout details are secondary but relevant. No redundant information.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't mention how to source proposal_id, what 'still-legal' means, or what the output represents, leaving an agent without enough context to call it correctly.

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 schema provides no description for proposal_id (coverage 0%), and the tool description does not explain what proposal_id is, how to obtain it, or what format it should be in. This is a critical omission for a single-parameter tool.

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 action: re-read the game and submit a proposal, with a condition that it must be still-legal. This is clear and distinct from typical sibling tools like preflight or get_legal_actions, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The dry-run default and no-retry behavior are mentioned, but there is no statement about when this should be invoked (e.g., after planning) or when to prefer other tools like step_once or autoplay.

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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool is read-only ('Read state only') and implies a compatibility check/refusal for older bridges. However, it does not describe error behavior, return characteristics, or side effects beyond being read-only, leaving some ambiguity about what 'refuse' means in practice.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the second clause is dense and uses domain-specific terms ('older bridges', 'advertises passive snapshots') without elaboration.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational constraint: only use with bridge schema 2 and refuse older bridges. It does not explain the domain vocabulary, but the provided context signals and output schema likely fill in enough for an agent operating in this environment.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 tool reads state from a specific source ('bridge schema 2') and that it provides passive snapshots, which aligns with the tool name. It does not explicitly compare itself to a sibling tool, but the 'state only' phrasing distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like execute_proposal or step_once. Some jargon like 'bridge schema 2' is unexplained, which prevents a top score.

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 gives a clear condition for use: only use with bridge schema 2 that advertises passive snapshots, and explicitly says to refuse older bridges before requesting state. This is strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative tools or explain what to do instead for older bridges.

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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'Read', indicating a non-mutating operation, and adds 'validate' as extra behavioral contextches. However, it does not describe prerequisites, failure behavior, or whether any validation has side effects.

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?

A single, tight eleven-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 no-argument read-only helper with an output schema, this is largely complete. It could still more explicitly position the tool within the agent loop, such as calling it before execute_proposal, but the core context is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema is fully covered and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings.

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 names a specific operation ('Read and validate') and a specific resource ('action candidates exposed by the current game screen'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_game_snapshot, which returns broader game state, and execute_proposal, which performs a mutation.

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 the natural usage—querying available actions for the current screen—but it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over get_game_snapshot, preflight, or recommend_next_action, nor does it list any exclusions.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that planning does not move the character, which is a key side-effect, but it does not describe other potential effects such as whether the plan is stored, returned, or modifies game state. For a planning tool, this is a significant gap, but the description at least highlights the most important non-effect.

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 sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a crucial behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff. It is optimally structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 (no parameters, simple action) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably describes return values), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and its key side-effect. It lacks explicit context on prerequisites or when to use it, but the usage guidelines dimension already touches on that. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 is empty, with zero parameters. Schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with 0 parameters, and the description does not introduce any confusion.

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 a specific verb 'plan' and a specific resource: 'a full Ironclad route to the boss'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that planning does not move the character, which sets it apart from movement-oriented tools like step_once or execute_proposal. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear contextual hint by stating that planning does not move the character, implying that this tool is for planning only and not for actual movement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not conditions. The exclusion of movement is implied but not fully explicit, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Read-only check', which discloses the non-destructive nature of the tool. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens on failure, whether it returns detailed diagnostics, or any side effects (though read-only implies none). The read-only disclosure is valuable but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and lists the specific resources checked. No wasted words; every part of the sentence adds information.

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 zero-parameter read-only check with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It names all the components being checked. It could be improved by stating when to run it (e.g., before starting a run), but the output schema likely covers return values. The main gap is usage timing, which is minor for a preflight tool.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter information. The description compensates by listing the specific items being checked (game bridge, game version, Kev model list, Luna key readiness), which gives an agent a clear idea of what the tool inspects. With 0 params, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 ('check') and resource ('local game bridge, local game version, Kev model list and Luna key readiness'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that get snapshots, plan routes, or execute proposals. It lacks a title but the description is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose.

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 this is a pre-flight readiness check to be run before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context signals show no annotations, so the description carries the burden, but it only implies usage rather than stating 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, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, validation behavior, and persistence. 'Validated' hints at some checking logic, but the description does not say whether this creates state, requires authorization, or is safe to call repeatedly.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and mode-selection rules. It loses points only because the introduced terms KEV and Luna are unexplained, making the compactness cryptic rather than purely helpful.

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?

While an output schema exists, the definition still fails to explain the only parameter, the meaning of the strategy codes, or the validation semantics. For a non-trivial recommendation tool with no annotations, this leaves critical invocation details missing.

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 schema has one parameter, route_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It never mentions route_id, its nullability, or how it influences the proposal, leaving the agent unable to determine correct parameter usage.

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 names a specific deliverable ('one validated proposal') and contrasts with execution-oriented siblings like execute_proposal. The strategy qualifiers (KEV, Luna, deterministic) imply distinct proposal-generation modes, though the cryptic domain terms prevent full clarity.

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 gives internal selection guidance ('KEV for tactical choices, Luna for strategy, deterministic for forced or unique actions') but never states when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_legal_actions, plan_map_route, or execute_proposal. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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, so description carries burden. It discloses that it starts fresh and doesn't overwrite a continue run, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or the nature of 'advertised menu action'.

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?

One sentence, no fluff. The key action is front-loaded. However, some terms like 'advertised menu action' are cryptic, but that's a clarity issue not conciseness.

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 only one parameter and an output schema, the description still leaves significant gaps: what is a 'menu action', how does profile_id affect the run, what are the prerequisites? The negative constraints help but are insufficient for confident invocation.

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%, and description does not explain profile_id parameter. The only hint is 'never switch profiles' which implies profile_id is used as-is, but the meaning is not clarified. The parameter has a default, but description adds no semantics.

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 it starts a fresh Ironclad run, which is a clear verb+resource. The phrase 'one advertised menu action per call' adds specificity but is ambiguous without context. Does not explicitly differentiate from step_once or autoplay, but 'fresh' implies not continuing.

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?

Gives a negative constraint 'never switch profiles or overwrite a continue run' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs siblings. It implies starting a new run rather than continuing, but doesn't name alternatives or conditions.

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, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral limit: it submits at most one validated game action, and only conditionally based on local config. But it does not clarify side effects, prerequisites, what 'validated' means, or whether the tool can return without acting.

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 and front-loads the core action. It is not bloated, though its conciseness comes at the cost of important contextual detail.

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 tool that can submit a game action)Skip? The description omits prerequisites, the role of local config, what 'routed decision' means, and how this tool fits with siblings like execute_proposal or autoplay. The output schema helps, but the tool context remains too sparse for confident invocation.

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% and the description never mentions route_id. The word 'routed' weakly hints that route_id selects the route, but the tool description does not explain how the parameter influences behavior or what null/default means.

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 names a specific action ('Run one routed decision') and indicates it may submit a game action, so an agent gets a general sense of the tool. However, 'routed decision' is opaque and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like execute_proposal or autoplay, which also appear to advance or execute actions.

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 only usage condition is 'when enabled in local config,' but there is no guidance about when to choose step_once over plan_map_route, recommend_next_action, execute_proposal, or autoplay. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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