request_hint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that 'direct' produces a stronger clue, which is useful, but it does not state side effects, limits on hint requests, or whether the hint is read-only. It is minimally transparent but has 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action and parameter effect without filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be spelled out. However, the description omits the session context and any constraints around hint availability, leaving context to be inferred from the required 'adventure_session_id' and the adventure-themed siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the non-obvious 'direct' boolean ('stronger clue') but does not explain 'adventure_session_id', though that parameter's title is reasonably self-explanatory. The required parameter is not described beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Request a subtle hint') and clearly distinguishes the two modes via the 'direct' flag. It also stands apart from all sibling action tools, none of which are hint-related.

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 the tool is for obtaining hints during an adventure, but it never states when to prefer it, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools. No explicit usage conditions are given; the use case is inferred from the name and wording.

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