Live game status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by explaining the connection mechanism (Lua debugger) and the graceful failure behavior when the game isn't running. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur, and it doesn't describe error behavior beyond the graceful failure. This provides some context but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and the exact fields reported, while the second sentence adds the failure condition. This is appropriately sized and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description covers what it does, what it returns, and the graceful failure mode. However, it does not mention whether the tool has side effects or if it's safe for read-only use, which might be expected given the absence of annotations. For its simplicity, it is fairly complete, but not exhaustive.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. Since there is nothing to clarify, this score 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 states a specific action (connect to Lua debugger and report) and a resource (live game status) with concrete output fields (tick, map loaded, player faction, entity counts). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like game_logs or game_eval, which focus on logs or evaluation rather than current state.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the failure condition when the game isn't running with -moddev, which is a precondition, not a usage recommendation. There's no mention of selecting this over other tools for specific scenarios, leaving the agent without direction on tool choice.

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