start_trivia_game

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavior: the tool returns a game_id and question set, and it explicitly instructs the agent to store game state in session memory and track scores, which is essential operational context not obvious from the schema. It does not cover potential side effects like rate limits, but for a generation tool this is adequate.

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 primary action, followed by return value and an important state-handling instruction. Every sentence earns its place; no filler 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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity: it states what is returned (game_id and question set) and provides the necessary state management context. Without an output schema, it does not detail the question set structure, but that may be acceptable for starting a game. The instruction about session memory fills a critical gap.

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 the parameter descriptions already provide sufficient meaning. The tool description adds no new parameter detail but the multi-player context implies why difficulty and number of questions matter. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage without needing additional explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and clearly identifies the resource ('a bundle of Star Trek trivia questions') and context ('for a multi-player game session'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_trivia_answer and trivia_quiz by emphasizing multi-player session initiation.

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 clear context: this tool is for creating a multi-player game session, implying it should be used when starting a game. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the multi-player qualifier distinguishes it from single-quiz tools, making the usage context clear without explicit when-not guidance.

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