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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It does not state whether this operation is destructive, what happens if the position parameter is excluded (likely appends to end), or the expected format of the command code integers.

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?

While not verbose, the single 6-word sentence is inappropriately brief for a tool with nested objects and zero schema documentation. It is front-loaded but underspecified for the complexity level.

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 high complexity (5 parameters, nested command object, mutation operation, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the domain model (RPG Maker-style event commands), return values, or error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the 5 parameters, especially the nested 'command' object structure (code, indent, parameters) and the 'position' insertion point. It mentions none of these, leaving all parameters effectively undocumented.

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?

States the basic action (add) and target (command on event page), providing minimal viable clarity. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling 'update_map_event' or explain what constitutes a 'command' in this game development 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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'update_map_event' or 'create_map_event'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing event page) or insertion behavior when the optional 'position' parameter is omitted.

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

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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description omits idempotency guarantees, error handling (e.g., duplicate names), side effects, or return value structure.

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?

At three words, the description is brief, but this reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. It front-loads nothing useful for parameter interpretation.

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?

Grossly inadequate for a 14-parameter object creation tool with no output schema. The description omits the domain model (RPG character system), parameter relationships (e.g., initialLevel vs maxLevel constraints), and return behavior.

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% and the description fails to compensate. Critical game-specific parameters (battlerName, faceIndex, characterIndex, classId) receive no explanation. The description adds zero semantic value beyond the bare schema property names.

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 'Create a new actor' is a tautology that restates the function name without defining what an 'actor' represents in this game development context (playable character). It fails to distinguish from siblings like update_actor or search_actors.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use create_actor versus update_actor, or prerequisites for creation. No mention of whether actors can be duplicated or if unique constraints apply.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description omits whether this returns the created skill ID/object, whether it modifies existing data, or what 'simplified' implies about the creation behavior.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no redundant words. While brief to the point of under-specification, it efficiently conveys the core purpose without filler content.

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 100% input schema coverage, the parameter documentation is adequately handled structurally. However, lacking an output schema and annotations, the description should ideally disclose return values or success indicators, which keeps it at minimum viable completeness rather than thorough.

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 100%, with all 6 parameters including 'buffType' and 'scope' enums documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline score for complete schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action ('Create') and resource type ('buff skill'), distinguishing it from generic skill creation tools. However, the parenthetical '(simplified)' is unexplained and doesn't clarify when to use this versus siblings like 'create_skill' or 'create_damage_skill'.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_skill' or 'create_state_skill'. No mention of prerequisites, constraints, or specific use cases that warrant the 'simplified' approach.

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

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 mentions '(simplified)' but fails to explain what is simplified—whether certain parameters are auto-generated, if this creates fewer database entries, or how it differs from the full create_skill tool. No mention of return values, side effects, or error conditions.

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 single sentence is efficiently structured with the verb front-loaded and zero redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters) and rich sibling context, it is inappropriately brief rather than appropriately concise.

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?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, what 'simplified' entails, or how it relates to the 4 other skill creation siblings (create_skill, create_healing_skill, etc.).

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 100%, with clear documentation for scope values and damage formula syntax. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema adequately documents semantics, making this the baseline score.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('damage-dealing skill'), and distinguishes from siblings like create_healing_skill or create_buff_skill. However, it underutilizes the '(simplified)' tag to explain how this differs from the generic create_skill sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_skill or other skill creation tools. The '(simplified)' qualifier hints at a distinction but fails to specify the criteria for selection (e.g., 'use when you don't need animation or complex effects').

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

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 but reveals nothing about side effects, validation rules, idempotency, or return values. The term '(simplified)' hints at behavioral differences from other tools but provides no specifics.

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 extremely brief with zero redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), it may be too concise to be 'appropriately sized' for the information burden required.

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?

For a creation tool with multiple parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It lacks explanation of what the tool returns, what '(simplified)' implies, how it differs from create_skill, and any error conditions or side effects.

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 100% (all 5 parameters are documented with types and descriptions, including helpful examples for healFormula and scope values). Since the schema is self-documenting, the description adds no additional parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and resource type ('healing skill'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_damage_skill and create_buff_skill. However, the '(simplified)' qualifier is vague and unexplained, leaving ambiguity about its relationship to the generic create_skill tool.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description fails to indicate when to use this tool versus the generic create_skill or other specialized skill creators, and mentions no prerequisites or constraints for invocation.

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

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 adequately states that the tool returns the new map ID and map data, but lacks details on side effects, error conditions (e.g., invalid dimension limits), or whether the creation is idempotent.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first states the action and inputs, the second states the return values—appropriately front-loaded and sized.

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?

While the description compensates for the missing output schema by stating what is returned, it fails to note that all 10 parameters are optional (0 required), which is critical context for an agent deciding whether to supply values. Given the rich schema, this omission keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping the 10 parameters into 'dimensions and properties,' providing conceptual organization beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('map') and mentions key attributes ('dimensions and properties'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'create_map_event' which creates entities on maps rather than the map container itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'paint_map' (which modifies existing maps) or 'get_map' (for reading). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a valid tilesetId to be available.

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

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. While 'Create' implies a mutation operation, the description provides no details about side effects (what happens if coordinates x/y are already occupied), idempotency, whether the operation is reversible, or the structure/contents expected in the 'pages' array.

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 sentence of appropriate length, avoiding redundancy. However, it suffers from under-specification rather than true conciseness—every word earns its place, but there are too few words to adequately describe a 6-parameter tool.

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 complexity (6 parameters with nested objects), game-specific domain terminology (events, pages), and complete absence of schema descriptions or output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain the domain model, parameter relationships, or return behavior.

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%, requiring the description to compensate by explaining parameter semantics. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving critical parameters like 'pages' (array type with unknown structure), 'note', and coordinate system (x/y) completely undocumented.

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 states a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('event on a map'), providing basic purpose identification. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_map' (which creates the map itself) or clarify what constitutes an 'event' in this game development context, leaving ambiguity regarding the tool's specific scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_map_event' (for existing events) or 'add_event_command', nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing mapId.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States 'Create' but omits critical mutation details: persistence model, ID generation, collision handling (duplicate names), or side effects. No disclosure of default values for optional parameters.

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?

Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, though arguably undersized for an 11-parameter mutation tool with complex nested objects. No redundant information.

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 100% schema coverage, basic parameter documentation is satisfied. However, lacks ecosystem context: doesn't explain relationship to stypeId system, damage formula syntax, or how created skills integrate with actors/items. No output schema compounds the 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 has 100% description coverage with detailed examples (damage formulas, scope IDs), so baseline is 3. Description adds 'custom properties' which loosely maps to the flexible schema, but provides no additional syntax guidance, value ranges, or cross-parameter relationships beyond 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?

States verb (Create) and resource (skill) clearly, but fails to distinguish from specialized siblings (create_damage_skill, create_healing_skill, etc.) that likely cover common use cases. 'Custom properties' is vague given the domain-specific parameters available.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the specialized skill creators (create_buff_skill, create_state_skill, etc.). No mention of prerequisites, uniqueness constraints, or failure conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a mutating operation, whether it is idempotent, what the return value or success indicators are, or any side effects of skill creation.

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 extremely concise (6 words) and front-loaded with the action verb. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), this brevity may be insufficient for agent decision-making.

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?

Despite having well-documented parameters, the description lacks necessary context given the absence of annotations and output schema. For a resource-creation tool, it should disclose what constitutes successful creation, any persistence guarantees, or error conditions.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all parameters (including helpful enum-like mappings for stateId and scope). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but none are needed given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 verb (Create) and resource (state-inflicting skill) with specific examples (poison, sleep) that distinguish it from sibling tools like create_damage_skill or create_healing_skill. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the generic create_skill sibling.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_skill (generic) or create_buff_skill. While the examples imply the domain (status effects), there are no when/when-not statements or prerequisites mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Get' implies read-only, but description doesn't confirm safety, idempotency, or error behavior (null vs exception when actor missing). No mention of return structure.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no filler. However, given lack of annotations and output schema, slightly more content (error handling, sibling differentiation) would improve utility without violating conciseness.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-parameter read operation with full schema coverage. Gaps remain regarding error handling and output format given no output schema exists, but core invocation path is documented.

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 has 100% coverage with clear description of 'actorId'. Description adds no additional parameter context (e.g., ID format, valid ranges), but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema documentation.

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?

Clear verb ('Get'), resource ('actor'), and scope ('by ID'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_actors' by specifying 'specific' and ID-based lookup, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'get_actors' (plural fetch) or 'search_actors' (filtered query). Missing guidance on error cases (e.g., invalid ID not found).

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

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to mention the return format, potential payload size concerns when retrieving 'all' actors, or whether the operation is safe/destructive.

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, efficiently structured sentence of seven words with no redundant or wasted text. The key information (action, scope, resource, domain) is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate for selection purposes. However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, the absence of any description regarding what data fields constitute an 'actor' or the return structure leaves a noticeable 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the rubric, this establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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 'Get' and resource 'actors' with clear scope 'all' and domain context 'RPG Maker MZ/MV project'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_actor' (singular) or 'search_actors' (filtered) in the text itself, relying solely on naming conventions.

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 that 'get_actor' retrieves a single actor, 'search_actors' allows filtering, or when to prefer this unfiltered retrieval over those options.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It communicates that the tool returns the complete, unfiltered set of armors, implying a read-only operation. However, it omits any details about return format, pagination, or potential errors, so behavioral transparency is limited.

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 that gets straight to the point. It doesn't waste words and is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 extremely simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description states it fetches all armors, but doesn't elaborate on the response structure or any limitations. For a basic list getter, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement, so a 3 is fitting.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameters to document. The schema's 100% coverage is trivially satisfied, and the description doesn't need to explain any inputs; baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'Get all armors from the project' clearly identifies the tool as a read operation to fetch every armor entity. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other get_* tools by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast with search_items or get_items.

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 like get_items or search_items. It doesn't mention any filtering or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a cached read, expensive database lookup, or safe operation. It also omits what format the game title is returned in.

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 extremely concise at only four words with zero redundancy. While appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, it sacrifices necessary context that would have earned a higher score in other dimensions.

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?

For a parameter-less tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but contains clear gaps. It does not explain what the game title represents in the system, nor does it describe the return value format, which would be useful given the lack of output schema.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. According to the scoring guidelines, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the empty schema conveys.

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 'Get the game title' is a tautology that restates the tool name. While it technically uses a verb and resource, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool update_game_title or clarify the scope of what 'game title' refers to (e.g., window title vs. internal project name).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention the complementary update_game_title sibling or any prerequisites for retrieving the title.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get all items from the project' which essentially restates the tool name. It does not disclose return format, potential size, pagination, or any permission requirements, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get all items from the project'. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For such a simple tool, the description is functional but minimal. Without an output schema, it does not clarify what 'items' includes (e.g., whether it includes weapons/armor) or what the return structure looks like. Given the many sibling tools, a brief clarification of scope would improve 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty (coverage 100%). With no parameters, the description does not need to elaborate, and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing additional is required.

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 ('Get'), resource ('all items'), and scope ('the project'), which clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_weapons or get_armors, which may overlap with 'items' depending on the game data model.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_items exists, but the description does not mention when a full 'get all' is appropriate versus a filtered search, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It states nothing about the read-only/idempotent nature, what the return structure contains (tile data? events?), or error handling behavior for non-existent IDs.

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?

Extremely brief at five words with no redundancy. While efficient, it may be overly terse given the lack of annotations and output schema, leaving significant interpretive burden on the agent.

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?

Lacks output schema documentation, which is critical for understanding what 'map data' includes (e.g., tilesets, events, dimensions). Given the complex sibling ecosystem (30+ tools), the description inadequately clarifies this tool's specific niche.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the structured definition already documents 'mapId' adequately. The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., where to obtain valid IDs, format constraints), warranting the baseline score.

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?

States the basic verb ('Get'), resource ('map data'), and lookup method ('by ID'), which is minimally sufficient. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like `get_map_infos` (which likely returns metadata/lists) or clarify what constitutes 'map data' in this domain.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus `get_map_infos`, `get_map_events`, or `paint_map`. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid ID range) or error conditions (e.g., invalid mapId).

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('get') but does not state what happens if the event is not found, the return format, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal disclosure.

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 fluff, but it is under-specified. While brevity can be good, here it omits necessary context, making it arguably incomplete rather than efficiently concise.

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 simple, but the description lacks important context such as the return value, relationship to sibling tools, and any behavioral caveats. Without an output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation.

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 two numeric parameters (mapId, eventId) with no descriptions, and the context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or relationship of these parameters beyond what their names already suggest, failing to compensate for the lack of schema hints.

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 ('get') and resource ('specific event from a map'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool get_map_events, which likely lists events, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_map_events, update_map_event, or create_map_event. The description does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where this tool would be preferred.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the core action and does not disclose return format, ordering, inclusion criteria, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a read operation where the agent might need to know what 'all events' entails.

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 focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks details about the return type or behavior (e.g., whether it returns an array, whether hidden events are included). No output schema exists, so the description should explicitly mention the shape of the result. Sibling tools provide some context, but the description itself is 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 has zero description coverage for mapId, and the description only implies that mapId identifies the specific map. It does not explain what the numeric ID represents or how it relates to other map tools, but it does clarify the parameter's role in the operation, which is more than the schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all events') with a clear scope ('from a specific map'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_map_event (singular) and search_map_events (search-based retrieval).

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 the primary use case (retrieve all events for a given map) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but the description itself does not state when to use this tool versus get_map_event or search_map_events.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While 'Get' implies read-only, the description does not explicitly confirm safety, disclose what specific map data is returned, or warn about potential performance implications of fetching 'all' maps.

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?

Extremely brief at five words. The description is front-loaded and efficient, though 'Get information' borders on restating the tool name. Appropriate length for a parameter-less tool, but trades specificity for brevity.

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 zero input parameters but no output schema, the description should ideally specify what map attributes are returned (IDs, names, metadata?). Currently vague on return value structure. Adequate for tool selection but incomplete for invocation confidence.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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?

States a clear verb (Get) and resource (information about all maps), distinguishing itself from sibling 'get_map' (singular) by specifying 'all maps'. However, 'information' remains somewhat vague about the specific data returned.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus sibling 'get_map' (which likely retrieves a single map) or versus 'search_map_events'. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not mention response format, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or whether the returned object includes full details. For a simple getter this is acceptable, but additional context would improve transparency.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It could benefit from a note about the return value or a pointer to sibling tools, but for a basic get-by-ID operation, it provides sufficient context.

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 one parameter (skillId) with a description, giving 100% schema coverage. Per guidelines, this sets a baseline of 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the score remains at baseline.

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 'Get a specific skill by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('skill'), and scope ('by ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_skills (which likely lists all skills) and search_skills. It is direct and unambiguous.

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 the use case: when you have a skill ID and need that specific skill. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use get_skills to list all skills or search_skills for filtering), so guidance on when to use it versus siblings is only implied, not stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'all skills' conveys the scope. However, it does not mention return format, potential performance implications, or whether it modifies anything, though the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable.

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 with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully complete. It provides all necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, with no ambiguity about what it does.

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 has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description clarifies that it retrieves all skills, which adds meaning beyond the empty schema by specifying the scope of the result.

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 'Get all skills from the project' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('all skills') and scope ('from the project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill (singular) and search_skills (filtered search).

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 such as search_skills or get_skill. It simply states what it does without specifying exclusions or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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

Description only states it gets names. No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication, side effects). It lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. Very concise, but could include more detail without harming conciseness.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter tool, but lacks contextual details like output format or behavior. No output schema or annotations to supplement.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema covers 100%. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description does not need to add param info.

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?

Clear verb ('Get') and resource ('all game switch names') define the tool's purpose. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_items' or 'get_map_event'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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

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

The description implies a read operation but provides no details about the nature of 'system data', potential side effects, or output format. Annotations are absent, so the description should carry the burden but fails.

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 sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. It is under-specified, not effectively concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., system version, settings). It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

With no parameters, the schema already covers 100%. The description adds no semantic value beyond the verb, but the lack of params means no enhanced meaning is needed. Baseline 4 is reduced because the description could have clarified what 'system data' encompasses.

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 'Get system data' is vague and does not specify what constitutes 'system data' or how it differs from siblings like get_items or get_variables.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_items, get_variables). The description lacks any context about typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden; it only states 'Get all game variable names' without detailing read-only nature or response format, which is adequate but not explicit.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the key action and resource.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to understand its purpose and use.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond 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 'Get all game variable names' clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('game variable names'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_items or get_switches.

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 is straightforward and implies a simple retrieval; no explicit when-not or alternatives are needed due to the tool's simplicity, but there is no exclusion guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the tool's name (implying a read operation) without revealing return format, pagination, authorization requirements, or whether the result includes all fields of each weapon. This is minimal context for a getter tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, matching the conciseness standard set by high-quality examples like get_calls.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It does not state the return format or whether it returns full weapon objects or just summaries, relying on the agent to infer context from 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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings because there are none, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. No additional parametrization context is required.

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 states 'Get all weapons from the project' with a specific verb and clear resource scope, making the primary action evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_items or get_armors, which could cause ambiguity if those tools return overlapping data.

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 such as search_items or get_items. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the agent has no basis for deciding between this and similar retrieval tools.

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

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

Discloses write operation ('Reads/writes map data') and atomicity/performance trait ('only once regardless of operation count'). Without annotations, description carries full burden but omits error handling, partial failure behavior, permission requirements, and return value details expected for mutation tools.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: defines operation, states use cases, explains performance characteristic. Appropriately sized and front-loaded for the complexity level.

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?

Adequate for the tool's purpose but gaps remain: no output schema exists yet description omits return behavior, success indicators, or error handling for the complex nested input structure. Complex mutation tools warrant more behavioral disclosure.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds domain context ('fill rectangles or draw outlines') bridging to the 'type' enum values, but does not supplement parameter syntax, validation constraints, or tileId value semantics beyond the schema's documentation.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Paint') + resource ('tiles on a map') + method ('batch operations'). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_map (makes new maps) or update_map_event (modifies events) by focusing on tile painting operations.

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?

Provides clear use cases ('terrain, roads, walls, decorations') and efficiency guidance ('in one call'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparison to individual tile update alternatives, though batch efficiency implies appropriate usage patterns.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions that the search covers 'name or nickname' fields, but fails to disclose matching behavior (partial vs exact, case sensitivity), result limits, or return format. For a read operation with no safety annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 six-word sentence with zero waste. It is immediately front-loaded with the action (Search) and target (actors). Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential functional context (what fields are searched). However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus get_actor or get_actors, leaving a gap in contextual completeness for the agent's decision-making.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantic context by specifying that the searchTerm applies to 'name or nickname' fields, helping the agent understand what data the parameter searches against beyond the generic schema description.

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?

Uses specific verb (Search) + resource (actors) + scope (by name or nickname). The inclusion of 'nickname' distinguishes this from a strict ID-based lookup (get_actor) and clarifies the searchable fields, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_actors or sibling search tools.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_actor (likely ID-based) or get_actors (likely list all). No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose matching behavior (partial vs exact, case sensitivity), return format, pagination limits, or what happens when no matches are found. No mention of whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'search' but not stated).

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?

Single sentence with zero redundancy. However, extreme brevity contributes to under-specification; with no annotations or schema descriptions, the description could accommodate more detail without violating conciseness principles.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool, it meets minimum viability by identifying the resource and search scope. However, lacks return value documentation (critical since no output schema exists) and behavioral constraints expected in a game development context (RPG Maker-like toolset).

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates partially by indicating searchTerm matches against both 'name' and 'description' fields, but lacks details on expected format, wildcards, or exact matching semantics.

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?

States specific action (Search) and resource (items) and searchable fields (name or description), which distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_items (likely by ID) and other search functions like search_actors or search_skills.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus get_items, update_item, or other item-related tools. No mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the basic search function, omitting return format (e.g., an array of events), whether search is case-sensitive or partial-match, and any rate limits or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's function and scope. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but lacks important contextual details such as the return value shape and any search behavior specifics. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description does not fully prepare an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description implicitly maps 'on a map' to mapId and 'by name' to searchTerm, adding semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explicitly reference parameter names or provide additional details like match type or required format, so the compensation for low schema coverage is partial.

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 'Search events on a map by name' clearly identifies the action (search), the resource (events on a map), and the scope (by name). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_map_events (which likely lists all events) and search_items (which searches a different resource type).

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 such as get_map_events or get_map_event. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this search is preferred, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add the useful detail that the search matches both name and description fields. However, it doesn't disclose match behavior (exact vs partial), case sensitivity, or return format.

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 with no redundant words. It conveys the action, resource, and search scope efficiently.

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 description covers the core action and search scope but omits details about the return value or result format. Without an output schema, the agent lacks clarity on what to expect from the tool. It is minimally complete for a simple search tool but leaves gaps.

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 description clarifies that searchTerm is used to match against skill name and description, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Search term' description. This helps the agent understand how to use the parameter effectively.

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 searches skills by name or description, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_skills and get_skill due to the 'search' verb, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_skills, create_skill, or search_items. There is no mention of intended use cases or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation overwrites existing names, requires specific permissions, handles invalid switch IDs, or produces any response. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 relatively simple with two parameters, but the description lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity around side effects and error handling.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It implies 'name' is the new name but does not clarify the format, constraints, or how 'switchId' identifies the switch. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Set') and resource ('switch name'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_variable_name, but the resource type provides implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_switches, set_variable_name), nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or whether it's a safe reversible operation. The short phrase implies mutation but offers no depth.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, but it under-specifies the tool. It doesn't earn its place because it merely restates the function name.

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?

For a simple two-parameter setter, the description is minimal but lacks context about the operation's behavior, return value, or relationships to sibling tools. The absence of annotations and output schema makes it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions 'a variable name' without explaining the variableId parameter or naming constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Set a variable name' essentially restates the tool name verbatim, providing no additional scope or differentiation from siblings like set_switch_name. It conveys the basic action but nothing more.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for renaming a specific variable by ID, nor any context like verifying the variable exists.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose mutation behavior details: whether updates are partial (merging) or complete replacement, error handling for invalid actorIds, or whether the operation is idempotent. The term 'Update' implies mutation but lacks safety context.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, given the complexity of nested object updates and mutation behavior, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

For a mutation tool with nested object parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits what properties are valid within the updates object, whether partial updates are supported, and what error conditions to expect.

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 100%, with both actorId and updates parameters adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema carries the load appropriately.

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 states the tool updates an actor's properties, which is clear but generic. It does not differentiate from sibling update tools (update_item, update_skill, etc.) or specify what constitutes 'properties' in this 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?

No guidance provided on when to use this versus create_actor (for new actors) or get_actor (to check current state). No mention of prerequisites like verifying actor existence before updating.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that this is a destructive overwrite operation, whether the change is immediate, or what authentication/permissions are required.

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?

While the description is brief (4 words), it is too terse to be useful and represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single sentence exists but fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain side effects, return values, or the nature of the state change being performed.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'title' parameter (e.g., whether it is the new title, max length constraints, or formatting requirements).

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 states the basic action ('Update') and resource ('game title'), but it is extremely minimal and borders on restating the tool name. It lacks specificity about what aspect of the title is being updated or any scope limitations.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the read-only alternative (get_game_title), or any prerequisites for invoking this mutation operation.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description lacks critical details: whether updates are partial or full replacement, what happens if the itemId doesn't exist, whether the operation is idempotent, or what properties are valid within the 'updates' object.

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 extremely brief at four words. While not verbose, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. In this case, greater length would be necessary to document the behavioral contract and parameter semantics that are currently missing.

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?

For an update operation with a schemaless 'updates' object parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It must explain valid update fields, error conditions, and return value structure, none of which are present.

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% and the description completely fails to compensate. Neither parameter (itemId, updates) is explained. The description doesn't clarify that itemId expects a numeric identifier, nor what structure/keys are expected in the nested 'updates' object, leaving the caller to guess at valid property names and types.

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 'Update an item's properties' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name (update_item) with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the resource type as 'item', it fails to distinguish from sibling update tools (update_actor, update_skill, etc.) or define what an 'item' represents in this game system 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the item must exist), when to prefer this over create_ methods, error handling behavior for invalid itemIds, or how to use the generic 'updates' object.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. 'Update' implies mutation but fails to specify if this is a partial update ( PATCH-like) or full replacement, whether omitted properties are preserved, or what the return value indicates.

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?

Extremely brief (5 words), but this represents under-specification rather than efficient communication. Given the complexity (nested object parameter, mutation behavior), the length is inadequate and front-loads no useful constraints.

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?

Completely inadequate for tool complexity. Mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, undocumented parameters, and a flexible 'updates' object requires detailed explanation of valid update paths, which is entirely absent.

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 has 0% description coverage with 3 parameters including a nested 'updates' object. Description adds zero semantic value—fails to explain what valid properties exist within the updates object, what mapId/eventId reference, or expected data formats.

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?

States the verb (Update) and resource (map event's properties), providing basic clarity. However, it lacks specificity regarding which properties can be modified and does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_map_event or get_map_event.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_map_event for new events). No mention of prerequisites, idempotency, or side effects.

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

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 merely restates the tool's name without explaining effects, return values, partial update semantics, permissions, or side effects. This is essentially a tautology.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly unhelpful. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, so it does not fully earn its place.

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 a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about return values, behavior on partial updates, or the shape of valid updates, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Although schema_description_coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are minimal ('The skill ID to update' and 'Properties to update'). The description adds no further meaning, and the 'updates' object's nested properties are unspecified, leaving the agent without valid keys or value formats.

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 operation: 'Update a skill's properties' with a specific verb (update) and resource (skill). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_actor or create_skill, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_skill or get_skill. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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 but fails to deliver. While 'Update' implies mutation, the description does not clarify if this change is persistent, if it affects active game sessions, requires specific permissions, or what happens to the previous starting position. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the operation type.

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?

While brief at only four words, this represents under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. The single sentence does not earn its place by providing actionable guidance, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the three-word description is completely inadequate. It lacks explanation of the coordinate system, map reference semantics, return values, or side effects—essential information given the complete absence of structured metadata.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (mapId, x, y), and the description completely fails to compensate for this gap. It does not explain that x and y represent coordinates, what coordinate system is used, or that mapId refers to a specific game map. The agent is given no semantic information to correctly populate these required fields.

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 'Update the game starting position' essentially restates the tool name with spaces added, constituting a tautology. While it identifies the verb (Update) and resource (game starting position), it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like update_actor or update_map_event, and does not clarify what 'starting position' means in the context of the game system.

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 such as update_actor or create_map. There are no prerequisites mentioned, no warnings about side effects, and no indication of when this update is appropriate versus other state modifications.

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