ttt_options

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

No annotations are provided. The description explains the empty return behavior and encoding reference. Lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but for a simple game tool, it is adequate.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and edge conditions. No wordiness.

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?

No output schema exists. The description references the encoding of moves but does not specify the output format (e.g., list of strings). For a simple enumeration, it covers the essential behavior but lacks complete specification.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond mentioning 'board' and 'player' implicitly via 'same encoding as ttt.move'. The schema already defines board as string length 9 and player as enum, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 enumerates legal moves for a player on a board, specifies the encoding reference to ttt.move, and notes when it returns empty. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings.

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 usage by stating conditions for empty return (not player's turn or game ended), but does not explicitly compare to siblings like ttt_move or turn_options.

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