read_stats

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond reading status bars. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only (likely, but not confirmed), any side effects, or requirements like needing a visible game window. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 sentence that is precise and front-loaded. It contains no wasted words and efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify the return format or indicate potential failure conditions, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (fresh_screenshot). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool reads specific values (HP, Prayer, Run energy, Special attack) from status bars, providing a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_stats', which likely reads similar stats, so it's slightly lacking in distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_stats' or 'detect_combat_state'. The description merely states what it does, without context on appropriate scenarios or preconditions.

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