view_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns 'a visual representation of the level', which is helpful, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the visual representation takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the tool's function, describing the parameter, and explaining the return value. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. The structure is clear, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be slightly more polished.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to fully explain returns. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context. The description covers the basics but lacks details on usage scenarios, error conditions, or visual representation specifics that would make it complete.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'encoded_level', explaining it should be 'from a URL or sharing link'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates somewhat by clarifying the parameter's source and format. However, it doesn't provide examples or detailed syntax, leaving room for improvement in fully documenting the parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'View a VibeTide level with visual representation.' It specifies the verb ('view') and resource ('VibeTide level'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_level' or 'edit_level_metadata'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'view_level_image', which might serve a similar visual purpose.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions that the input is 'an encoded level string from a URL or sharing link', but doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'view_level_image' or 'play_level'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are included.

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