get_legal_actions

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.