swu_get_game_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that hidden information is filtered by viewer unless reveal_all is true, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not mention authentication or permissions, but for a simple state getter this is sufficient.

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 conveys both the primary function and the key behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the core filtering behavior and the existence of a viewer concept. It does not provide usage guidelines or exclusions, but the scope is narrow enough that this is not a critical gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the effect of viewer and reveal_all ('filtered by viewer unless reveal_all is true'), but game_id is left to the schema. Since game_id is self-explanatory from the name, the description adds meaning for two of three parameters, which is good compensation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'current two-player game state', while also noting the hidden-information filtering behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_view_hand or swu_view_board that focus on specific subsets of the game state.

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 its use when the full game state is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as swu_view_hand or swu_get_legal_actions. There is no direct when-to-use guidance, only an implied context via the phrase 'current two-player game state'.

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