Read Battle State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact content returned (checkpoint/frontier envelope and session summary), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's output nature. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the objects returned. No extraneous words or filler. It is highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently communicates the purpose and return content. It could mention when to use this over related read tools, but that gap is minor given the low complexity and clear resource naming. Overall, the agent has enough to invoke it 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 100%: the playSessionId parameter is thoroughly documented with a regex pattern and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Since the schema fully handles parameter semantics, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('battle-runtime checkpoint/frontier envelope and MCP session summary'). It clearly identifies the tool's focus on battle state, distinguishing it from siblings like read_play_session which targets play session data. The phrasing is unambiguous and specific.

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 retrieving battle state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as read_play_session or describe_mcp_workflow. No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the resource name. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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