rollout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the calculation method (Monte Carlo), the return format (dict with probabilities and std devs), and the RNG seed for reproducibility. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, which is important in the absence of annotations.

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: a one-line summary, followed by a clear Args list and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the organization makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations), the description covers all parameters and the return type. However, some parameter descriptions are terse (e.g., 'cube state dict' and 'rollout_type' options are listed but not explained in detail). Still, with an output schema, the return values need not be described further.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides a detailed Args section explaining every parameter, including defaults and valid options (e.g., 'player': Who is on roll, 'ngames': default 1296, 'score': match score format). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 'Perform a cubeless Monte Carlo rollout of a position' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'cubeless', which contrasts with the sibling 'cubeful_rollout'.

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 when to use the tool via the term 'cubeless', but it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of cubeful_rollout for cubeless analysis' nor mention any conditions or alternatives. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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