get_play_state

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it does disclose the shape of the returned state, which matters because there is no output schema. However, it does not explain what values 'mode' can take, whether the read is cheap/side-effect-free, or how the flags relate to the playtest lifecycle.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with the parenthetical return fields appended compactly. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 status getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields an agent needs to interpret the result. It is nearly complete, missing only the meaning/enumeration of the 'mode' value.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds return-field semantics (isPlaying, isRunning, mode) but nothing about parameters is needed or possible.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('current playtest state') with the returned fields named inline (isPlaying, isRunning, mode). It is clearly distinguishable from the playtest-control siblings (play_solo, run_game, stop_playtest), though it never says so explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name: query the playtest status, presumably before or after calling playtest/play_solo/run_game/stop_playtest. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the control tools it complements, and no prerequisite or polling guidance.

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