check_reveal_conditions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does ('check if any secrets should be revealed'), but doesn't explain how it works—e.g., whether it's a read-only check, if it has side effects like updating game state, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe or effective use.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of effective brevity in tool descriptions.

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 complexity (3 parameters, nested 'event' object with multiple properties, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how the tool behaves, what it returns, or the meaning of its inputs. For a tool that likely influences game narrative or state, more context is needed to use it correctly without trial and error.

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 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'worldId', 'event', or 'sessionId' mean, their formats, or how they affect the check. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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's purpose: 'Check if any secrets should be revealed based on a game event.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('secrets'), and the condition ('based on a game event'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reveal_secret' or 'get_secrets_for_context', which could provide similar functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'reveal_secret' (which might directly reveal a secret) or 'get_secrets_for_context' (which might list secrets). This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.

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