swu_simulate_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the prerequisite (both AI), the simulation nature, and the return contents (winner, damage breakdown, MVP cards, log). It does not mention any side effects or rate limits, but the simulation context implies a read-like execution.

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 two well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose and then provide essential details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 is moderately complex, and an output schema exists to explain return values, which the description also summarizes. However, the description omits the max_turns parameter's behavior and does not clarify whether the game_id must be an already-started game, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions game_id implicitly through 'set player_is_ai=true in start_game' but does not explain the max_turns parameter at all, leaving its meaning and impact unclear.

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 clearly states the tool runs a full AI-vs-AI game simulation to completion, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('game simulation'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swu_take_ai_turn by emphasizing full completion rather than a single turn.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: both players must be AI, and it requires prior setup in start_game. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance.

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