swu_get_legal_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns legal actions but does not mention side effects (or lack thereof), error conditions, or any constraints like requiring an active game. The verb 'Return' hints at read-only behavior, but no further context is given.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter tool. It could arguably be improved with a bit more context, but as a standalone statement it is clear and front-loaded. It does not waste any words.

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?

Given the tool's parameters, lack of schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, usage context, or behavioral constraints. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 compensate. It does not explain the game_id or player_id parameters at all. The mention of 'a game' vaguely implies game_id, but there is no detail about what player_id means or its default behavior. The description adds no semantic value to the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('currently legal actions for the active player in a game'). It distinctly identifies the tool's function and naturally differentiates it from sibling tools like swu_take_game_action or swu_get_game_state by focusing on legal actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical calling patterns (e.g., before taking an action), prerequisites, or exclusions. The only clue is the tool's name and the phrase 'in a game', which implies usage context but is not explicit.

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