gamebook

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

The description discloses the self-check mechanism ('refuses inconsistent reads'), the coverage flags on unverified dimensions, and the last-5 retention policy. This goes well beyond the minimal annotations and manages expectations about data trustworthiness.

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 compact yet information-dense, using a bulleted action list to organize functional details. The opening sentence and parentheses efficiently convey scope and storage limits.

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?

All four actions have stated behavior and return values, and the nested round structure is fully documented. The existence of an output schema also covers response details, making this complete for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Even though the schema's parameters have no descriptions, the tool description explains each action's required parameters ('save' needs `round`, 'get' needs `round_id`) and provides an inline schema for the round object. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific resource ('On-course rounds ingested from Golf GameBook screenshots') and enumerates four concrete actions (save, list, get, compare). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping to GameBook screenshot data rather than Trackman or session analysis.

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 implies when to use the tool by noting that the `gamebook-screenshot-analysis` skill extracts and saves rounds here. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so users must infer that Trackman/session data goes elsewhere.

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