game_op

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape and error codes ('not_found', 'internal'), but it does not say whether command ops mutate state, require permissions, or are idempotent, which matters for an arbitrary game-op invoker.

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?

Three tight sentences cover purpose, discovery, and return/error behavior in a front-loaded order. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 generic game-op dispatcher, the description gives a usable return shape, error codes, and a discovery path. It stops short of safety/side-effect disclosure that would be valuable for commands when no annotations or output schema exist.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces that op values come from list_game_ops and that param shapes are discoverable there, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: invoke a game-specific custom query or command registered by the running game. It also distinguishes this tool from the discovery sibling by pointing to list_game_ops. An agent can tell this is the execution/dispatch tool, not the discovery tool.

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 explicitly says to use list_game_ops to discover available ops and their param shapes, giving clear context and naming an alternative. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or how it relates to other command/event siblings beyond discovery.

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