step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the core behavior: advancing frames and then re-pausing. It also states the required initial state. It omits error handling if the game is not paused or if the frame count exceeds the maximum, but for a simple state-advancing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the essential precondition. No redundant or wasted wording.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, and postcondition adequately. It could mention what happens on invalid input or the return value, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% description coverage for the 'frames' parameter, including default and max values. The description only restates 'N frames' without adding syntax or format details, so it does not go beyond the schema and the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Advance') and resource ('the game by N frames') with clear scope ('while paused, then re-pause'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pause' (which only pauses) and 'wait_for_idle' (which waits for idle) by describing a unique frame-stepping behavior.

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 a clear precondition ('Game must be paused first'), which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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