game_time_scale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the effect of scale values and the consequence that turns cost less game time, which is beyond the name. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like whether the change is global or persistent, or any latency implications, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core semantics and then adding a practical usage tip. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 with one optional parameter, and the description covers its effect and a use case. It doesn't explain the return value, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. It could mention the scope of the change (e.g., affects all players or just the session) for full completeness, but given its simplicity, it is largely adequate.

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 provides no description for the 'scale' parameter, but the description compensates by defining the value semantics: 1.0 normal, 0.0 freeze, and recommending a slow-motion range of 0.1-0.3. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare number type and default.

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 explicitly states the tool's function—slowing down or speeding up the world, likening it to the `slomo` command—and defines the scale semantics (1.0 normal, 0.0 freeze). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling game-control tools like game_pad or game_key, which manipulate input rather than time.

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 a specific use case: dropping to 0.1-0.3 for precise action placement, noting that the game continues but turns cost less game time. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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