new_game_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the return format (FEN), but does not disclose that starting a new game likely discards the current game state or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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, leading with the core purpose, then cleanly structured Args and Returns sections. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description provides the essential action and return format. However, it omits important context about side effects (e.g., whether the existing game is reset) and does not mention that this is a state-changing operation. An output schema is present, but the description still needs to cover the reset semantics for 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'Args: None', which adds clarity. No parameter semantics are needed beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 'Creates a new game' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from all sibling tools (get_state, make_move, etc.) because it is the only one that initializes a new game. The scope is immediately obvious.

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 tool name and description imply use when starting a fresh game, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or discussion of alternatives. Given the sibling tools, it is clear when to use this tool, but the description does not state prerequisites or that it replaces the current game state.

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