check_game_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it defines exactly what counts as an error vs a warning, explains the subtle symmetric-but-broken-mesh case, and documents budget_only's cheap counting behavior, the over_budget output, and the draw_calls_if_instanced semantics. Gaps remain — it never explicitly says the check is non-mutating and says little about cost of the full check.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and then organized into errors, warnings, and the budget mode, so the reader gets the key facts early. It is dense and information-rich, though parenthetical asides ('a boolean cutter without one leaves them', 'plane: the middle of its box, or 0') add clutter that a tighter phrasing could drop.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies a lot: the ready/over_budget return semantics, both operating modes, and the meaning of each check category. It is nearly sufficient, with the main shortfall being incomplete coverage of a few input parameters and no explicit statement of side effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains names, the max_* limits (tris, objects, materials, draw calls, texture), symmetry_axis, and budget_only. But require_uv and name_pattern are never addressed, and the max_* grouping is only implied, so it covers roughly half the parameters.

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 opening 'Pre-export gate' plus the enumeration of errors and warnings makes it immediately clear this is a mesh/scene validation tool for export. The specific check categories (names, scale, materials, normals, textures, budgets) are far more concrete than a vague 'check' verb. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like check_mesh or check_symmetry, which overlap in scope.

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?

It states the primary context ('pre-export gate') and gives a clear conditional path: use budget_only=true 'at any stage' for the cheap budget question, and symmetry_axis=null skips the symmetry check. That is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when NOT to run the full check (e.g., its cost relative to check_mesh).

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