get_game_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It openly discloses that it returns only the latest frame, includes visible enemy units, and lists the unit fields (id/type/x/y/hp/sh/player/owner). This is adequate for a simple getter, though it does not explicitly say it has no side effects.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the purpose first, then enumerates the return groups and unit fields. Every line provides useful information, with no redundant 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 zero-parameter, simple game-state getter without an output schema, the description covers the key return contents and field names. There is no missing information that an agent would need to invoke it correctly or interpret its output.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly omits irrelevant parameter details, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('当前游戏状态'), and further specifies what is returned: self (矿/气/供给/单位列表) and enemies (可见敌方单位). This fully distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like train, build, and move.

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 implies its usage as a read-only state inspection tool, especially in contrast to the action-heavy sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when an alternative would be preferable. Usage context is clear but left to inference.

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