ygo_judge_interaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that rulings are grounded in the ocgcore engine and the Konami rulebook, adding authority and source context, but it does not explain output form, limitations, latency, or caveats.

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 no wasted wording. It efficiently conveys the core action, scope, and grounding sources.

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 three-parameter ruling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It identifies the domain and sources but leaves the agent without guidance on alternatives, expected response shape, or limitations.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already well documented. The description adds only the notion of two specific cards and an official ruling; it does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: an official ruling on the interaction between two specific cards. It is clearer than a generic judging tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as ygo_judge_card or ygo_judge_scenario.

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 implied by the focus on interactions between two specific cards, suggesting this is for paired-card ruling questions. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to similar ruling tools.

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