reveal_secret

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 mentions the output requirement ('Include the spoilerMarkdown field'), which is useful, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this action is read-only or mutative, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens to the secret after revelation (e.g., is it marked as revealed?). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Reveal a secret to the player') and adds a necessary output instruction. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by separating usage from output requirements.

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 (a tool that reveals secrets, likely involving game state changes), no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what the tool returns beyond the spoilerMarkdown hint. For a tool with four parameters and potential mutative effects, this is inadequate.

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 50% (two of four parameters have descriptions: 'triggeredBy' and 'partial'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'secretId' or 'sessionId' usage. It compensates minimally by implying parameters are needed for the reveal, but no extra semantics are given.

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 ('reveal a secret to the player') and resource ('secret'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_secret' or 'check_reveal_conditions', which might retrieve or verify secrets without revealing them to players, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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 such as 'get_secret' or 'check_reveal_conditions'. It mentions including 'spoilerMarkdown field in your response', but this is an output instruction, not usage context. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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