ygo_golden_suite

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior (replay all stored scenarios, diff against expected outcomes), which is valuable, but says nothing about runtime cost, whether any state is written, or how failures are surfaced — and there is no output schema to cover the result format.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the what front-loaded and the when-to-use immediately following. Nothing to trim.

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?

Both parameters are optional and there is no output schema, so an agent needs the description to convey what comes back from a run — and the description only gestures at this with 'see exactly which behaviour changed.' Adequate but leaves a real gap for a test-execution tool.

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 both parameters (file, only) are already documented in the schema. The description mentions neither, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Run the golden regression suite') plus a concrete mechanism ('every stored scenario is replayed on ocgcore and compared with its expected outcome'). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like ygo_test_custom_card or ygo_judge_scenario, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering context: 'Use after a ProjectIgnis script update or an engine bump to see exactly which behaviour changed.' That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or a named alternative for ad-hoc single-scenario checks.

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