game_eval

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It identifies the execution environment and return convention, but it never warns that arbitrary GDScript can mutate live game state irreversibly, nor does it describe error behavior, execution limits, or result serialization.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the return-value convention is stated directly. Every word earns its place.

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 an arbitrary code-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but incomplete. It omits side-effect caution, error handling, and what returned values look like, even though the single-parameter schema is fully covered.

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 already documents the single `code` parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the schema text ('Use "return" for values') and adds no new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Execute GDScript in the running game.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and sets it apart from the many narrower game_* sibling tools. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives, but the arbitrary-code-execution nature is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_call_method, game_script, or game_get_property. The only usage note, 'Use "return" for values,' addresses how to format code, not when this tool should be selected.

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