game_state

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

Adds operational context beyond annotations: describes 'fast' performance, requires run_interactive, and discloses conditional return of Player position. Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) are complemented, not contradicted.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with front-loaded purpose, followed by alternatives and a prerequisite. No filler; every clause adds useful information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (scene name, autoload vars, Player position), usage context, prerequisites, and fallback alternatives. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds value by outlining what the tool returns, though it naturally cannot add parameter-level detail since none exist.

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?

Clearly states the tool returns scene name, autoload variables, and Player position, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource. Explicitly differentiates from game_screenshot by noting it is preferred for gameplay logic.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: preferred over game_screenshot for gameplay logic, and directs users to evaluate_expression or get_node_properties for state not exposed via autoloads. Also mentions inline state capturing via send_key_sequence and the prerequisite run_interactive.

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