List params

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. 'Every tunable param group' usefully signals an unfiltered, complete listing with no arguments, but it says nothing about ordering, cost, or staleness relative to game_state. Adequate but thin given annotations do most of the work.

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 fragment of roughly fifteen words with no filler, and the enumeration of returned fields is tightly packed. It is telegraphic rather than broken, but the missing verb makes it slightly less self-contained than a full sentence would be.

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 carry the return-shape burden, and it does list the schema fields (type, default, min, max, units, description) plus current values. However it omits any mention of how these values relate to the rest of the game_* family (e.g., that current values are the same ones game_set_param mutates), leaving a gap for an agent navigating twenty sibling tools.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no words on parameter syntax and instead describes what the call yields.

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 resource precisely ('every tunable param group') and enumerates the returned content shape, so an agent can tell this is a read-only enumeration of parameters rather than the mutator game_set_param. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with its sibling setter, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the description is purely a content description. An agent must infer on its own that this is the discovery step before game_set_param, and no exclusion (e.g., 'use game_state for live values') is stated.

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