create_dev_game

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: it creates a game, uses a state lock to prevent duplicate creation, and expects a second connection to join. This is transparent about the locking mechanism and the requirement for a second participant.

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 concise and well-structured, including a separate section for the locking mechanism. It avoids unnecessary details and is easy to read.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the two parameters with no description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter roles or return value, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand proper usage.

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 two parameters (connection_id, scenario) with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain the meaning of connection_id or scenario, nor how they affect the behavior. The schema provides basic type info, but the description adds no value beyond that.

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 that the tool creates a hardcoded dev game and seats the calling connection in slot A (blue). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'join_dev_game' by mentioning that the second connection uses that tool to take slot B.

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 explains that only one dev game can exist, and a second connection must call join_dev_game to start the match. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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