gameplay_telemetry_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the incremental behavior ('new log lines since last snapshot') and the PIE requirement, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it resets or consumes the log buffer, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral 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, front-loaded sentence with a clear action verb ('Capture') and a compact, comma-separated list of captured items. Every word contributes information; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the key prerequisite. It could be more explicit about side effects or error conditions, but for a telemetry snapshot, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description's enumeration of captured data indirectly explains what the tool returns, which is sufficient.

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 function: capturing the current PIE runtime state, and lists specific data points it captures (log lines, pawn class, widget names, AI controller states, world name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gameplay_pie_start and gameplay_pie_stop, which control PIE lifecycle rather than snapshot state.

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 a clear context by stating 'PIE must be running', which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a perfect score, but the prerequisite is helpful.

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