system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description fails to indicate whether this tool performs read-only operations, mutations, or both. It doesn't mention permissions needed, side effects, error conditions, or what happens when operations are performed. For a complex 15-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a critical gap.

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 brief (8 words) but under-specified rather than concise. It's structured as a feature list without clear organization. While not verbose, it fails to communicate essential information, making its brevity a liability rather than a strength.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what behaviors to expect, or how parameters interact. The feature list provides minimal context that doesn't help an agent understand this tool's role in the system.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate schema coverage, but the description contributes zero additional parameter 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?

The description lists system features (scoreboards, screen displays, player UI, game management) but doesn't state what the tool actually does. It's a vague feature list rather than specifying a verb+resource action. The name 'system' is generic, and the description doesn't clarify whether this is for configuring, querying, or manipulating these features.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions from sibling tools like 'player', 'sequence', or 'send_message' that might overlap with UI/messaging functionality.

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