control_ready

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the underlying protocol constant and the UI equivalent ('click the Ready button'), which clarifies the mechanism, but it does not state side effects, whether the action is idempotent if already ready, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements.

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 with zero waste that states both the protocol action and its user-facing equivalent.

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 simple, parameterless action with no output schema, the description covers what it does and how it maps to the UI. It could be more complete by noting preconditions (being in a room) and expected outcome (e.g., game start when all players ready), but the essentials are present.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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?

Names a specific action (send CTOS_HS_READY / click Ready) and scope (current room), which is unambiguous against siblings like control_start or control_surrender. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the verb+resource is concrete.

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 phrase 'for the current room' implies the context in which it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be in a lobby), and no mention of alternatives such as control_start.

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