ttt_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the return of an empty list when the game state is invalid (not player's turn or ended). The 'same encoding as ttt.move' note also reduces ambiguity about the output format. It does not discuss side effects, but enumeration inherently implies a read-only action.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes to understanding. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a straightforward query 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 description covers the tool's purpose, edge cases, and encoding consistency with a sibling tool. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. It does not explicitly mention that the board is a 9-character string, but the schema already provides that, and the cross-reference helps fill gaps. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by referencing the encoding of ttt.move for the board and implicitly identifying the 'player' parameter. However, it does not detail the board string format or what constitutes a legal move beyond the cross-reference, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with ttt.move.

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 operation: 'Enumerate the legal moves for a player on a board.' It specifies the resource (board/player) and the verb (enumerate). It also differentiates from sibling ttt_move, which makes a move, by focusing on legal moves, and provides an explicit encoding reference to ttt.move.

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 (when wanting legal moves before deciding) and clarifies edge cases ('Empty when it is not the player's turn or the game has ended'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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