Runtime errors

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the consequence of a loop error (game halts), the recovery procedure via game_pause, and an escalation policy for debuff-bug errors. It adds genuine context beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with what the resource is, then the field enumeration, then the two action rules; every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. It is dense but each clause conveys either output shape or required agent behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values and it does by enumerating the error record fields. Combined with the stop/resume semantics and the debuff-bug escalation rule, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exists, and it does not claim any filtering or scoping inputs.

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 names the exact resource (runtime errors since game start) and enumerates its shape with the error kind taxonomy (your-code, debuff-usage, debuff-bug, outside), location, hint, loop phase/tick, and repeat count. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like game_state, game_profile, and game_notes without opening any schema.

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?

It gives concrete situational guidance: a loop error stops the game, so fix it and resume with game_pause false; for debuff-bug, escalate to the human with reportUrl instead of working around it. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternative diagnostic siblings, but the when-to-act guidance is strong.

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