cubeful_rollout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions simulation count (ngames), reproducibility (seed), and the return of detailed statistics including cubeful equity. It does not mention performance cost or failure modes, but for a computation tool the main behavioral aspects are reasonably covered.

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 well-structured with an Arg list and Returns section. Each line provides meaningful information without verbosity. The 'Board in any supported format' phrase is a bit vague, but overall every sentence earns 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?

Given the tool's complexity and 7 parameters, the description covers all parameters and the return value, which is sufficient for basic usage. It does not detail supported board formats or explicitly discuss alternative tools, but with an output schema present and all inputs documented, it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: board_input format flexibility, player on roll, ngames default and configurability, ply depth, match score semantics, cube state dict, and seed purpose. This adds meaning far beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Perform a cubeful rollout with doubling cube handling.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'rollout' by emphasizing the cubeful/doubling-cube aspect, making the tool's 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?

The description clearly identifies context for use: cases involving the doubling cube and cubeful equity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use, but the cubeful phrasing and the existence of sibling 'rollout' imply differentiation. Slight room for explicit 'use plain rollout for cubeless' guidance.

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