ygo_judge_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a decent job: it names the execution substrate (ocgcore-wasm), enumerates the returned artifacts (verdict, chain link by link, transcript, evidence per expectation, final field/LP, citations) and mentions the step cap. It does not disclose latency, determinism, or what happens on scenario parse failure, which keeps it off a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action, and the output enumeration is compact rather than padded. The long artifact list is dense but every item is meaningful; the only waste is that the preset sentence is thin compared to the rest.

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?

Covering return values is necessary here since there is no output schema, and the description does that well. What is missing for a 7-parameter tool with zero required parameters is guidance on the mutually exclusive input modes (preset vs board vs scenario vs deck) and how the verdict differs from sibling simulation tools, which leaves a real gap an agent must guess at.

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 the schema already explains deck, opponentDeck, board, scenario, preset, maxSteps and citations. The description only adds that presets target 'negotiate and protection cases', which enriches the enum slightly, but it never explains how the board/scenario/preset input modes relate or that at least one must be supplied.

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 compound action — run a real duel on ocgcore-wasm, compare the judge's expectations against engine output, and conclude with a verdict. That is far more precise than the title alone. It stops short of naming the close siblings (ygo_simulate_duel_scenario, ygo_run_duel, ygo_verify_ruling), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 rather than stated: the tool is for turning a judge expectation into an engine-checked CONFIRMED/REFUTED/INCONCLUSIVE verdict, and 'presets cover the common negate and protection cases' hints at the quick path. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing advice versus ygo_simulate_duel_scenario or ygo_verify_ruling, which overlap heavily.

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