game_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the call is cheap and can be made often, and it details the exact return contents, including custom provider values. It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but as a read-only state query, it is sufficiently transparent and contradicts nothing.

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 and front-loaded with a summary of the tool's essence. It then details return values, parameter semantics, and a usage recommendation, with no wasted sentences. Formatting with backticks and a clear logical flow makes it easy to scan.

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 major return fields and custom provider values, and an output schema exists. It likely suffices for an agent to understand what to expect. Minor gaps include lack of error or edge-case handling, but these are not critical for a state query tool.

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 explains `class_filter` (substring filter) and `radius` (in centimetres) explicitly. It does not explain `actors` or `max_actors`, but they are inferable from names and defaults. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates, leaving two parameters underspecified.

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 returns a structured world state, enumerating specific elements: level name, time, player transform, velocity, movement mode, camera, and nearby actors. It distinguishes itself from a screenshot and explicitly frames itself as a precise alternative to reading numbers off the screen, making its 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?

It gives explicit guidance to prefer this tool over reading numbers off the screen, indicating a use case. It also references game_mouse coordinates, implying how to use the output for aiming. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use this one, leaving some room for interpretation.

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