key_reference

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It is evidently a side-effect-free lookup, but the description never confirms that it does not advance or alter game state, nor whether the reference is static across sessions, which matters for an agent deciding whether to cache it.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every element listed earns its place by telling the agent exactly what content to expect back.

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 reference tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to decide to call it. A brief note on the shape of the returned data would close the only remaining gap, since no output schema exists to describe it.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema and description are fully consistent in presenting this as an argument-free call.

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 verb ("Return") and enumerates exactly what is returned: Ularn commands, map symbols, and the goal of the game. That is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_state or get_screen, which read live game data rather than static reference material, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to know which commands exist or what a map symbol means. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus get_state/get_screen, and no note that it takes no arguments so it can be called freely at any time.

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