swu_take_ai_turn

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the duration ('one turn or until it ends the turn') but does not state whether the tool mutates game state, whether it is a simulation, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for an operation that likely changes the game.

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 short sentence, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and substantive content; it does not enumerate parameters or behavioral semantics. It is not verbose, but under-specification prevents a higher score.

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 no annotations and a minimal description, leaving unclear what 'taking a turn' involves, how max_actions constrains the AI, and how this relates to other game-action tools. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but input semantics and behavioral context are incomplete.

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 provides three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. It does not clarify game_id, player_id, or max_actions, nor does it mention the default for player_id or the meaning of max_actions in the context of an AI turn.

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 indicates a specific verb-resource pair: 'pilot' the AI's side for a turn. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like swu_take_game_action because it focuses on the AI's entire turn rather than a single action. However, 'pilot' is nonstandard and 'its side' is ambiguous without knowing the game context.

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 prerequisites (e.g., an active game), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools such as swu_take_game_action or swu_simulate_game.

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