ygo_simulate_duel_scenario

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important trait – 'Heuristic only' – which tells the agent results are advisory rather than engine-verified. It omits other relevant behavior: that some parameter combinations silently switch to real engine execution, whether the call has side effects, and how the 'judge-style verdict' is shaped or how confident it is.

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, both front-loaded with the operative facts: what is analysed first, the escape hatch to alternatives second. No filler, no restating of the tool name, and the routing note sits at the end where an agent will read it before calling.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates reasonably by listing the analytical dimensions a verdict covers. The main gap is that it never explains the two operating modes implied by deckA/deckB versus pure text heuristics, which is the single most decision-relevant piece of context for this 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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented, and the baseline applies. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own – nothing about how deckA/deckB flip the tool into engine mode, how maxSteps interacts with heuristic mode, or whether format changes legality evaluation.

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?

A specific verb ('Analyse') plus a concrete resource ('duel scenario'), followed by an enumeration of what is checked (chain order, legality, cost/target/timing, Lua cross-reference, verdict) that makes the output mentally previewable. It names the adjacent siblings ygo_judge_scenario and ygo_run_duel to draw a boundary. The boundary is weakened by the schema's note that supplying deckA+deckB runs the real ocgcore-wasm engine, which undercuts the flat claim that this tool is 'heuristic only'.

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?

There is explicit routing advice – go to ygo_judge_scenario or ygo_run_duel for 'real engine execution' – which is more than most definitions offer. However, the distinction between this tool and ygo_judge_scenario is never made concrete (both sound like textual scenario judging), and no positive condition is given for when this tool is the right pick, e.g. quick text-only sanity checks. The guidance also conflicts with the deckA/deckB engine path documented in the schema.

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