cc_new_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool places the player in Millhaven and introduces the quest, providing basic behavioral context. However, it omits details like whether an existing game is overwritten, what state is created, or if there are destructive side effects, which would be valuable for a game initialization tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the action ('Begin a new Critter Catch adventure') and immediately providing relevant details (location, quest). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single-parameter initialization tool, the description covers the main action and initial game state (location and quest). However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a success message, initial game state) or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing progress). Given no output schema, a bit more return information would improve completeness.

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%, and the schema already describes the player_name parameter as 'Your character's name'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is already documented in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Begin' and resource 'new Critter Catch adventure', clearly distinguishing it from sibling new_game tools for other games. It adds location (Millhaven) and quest introduction, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., other new_game tools for different games) strongly implies this is for starting a Critter Catch game. A dedicated agent could infer correct usage, but a score of 3 reflects the lack of explicit alternatives or prerequisites.

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