qa_get_current_round

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and clarifies a non-obvious distinction about which 'round' is being referenced. It does not describe behavior such as what happens if no round is available, whether reading advances the queue, or any response shape, but for a simple getter the core behavioral trait is apparent.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The main statement is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds an important nuance without redundancy. Every word 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?

For a tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for invoking the call. Missing elements include usage guidance relative to siblings and any detail about return behavior, but the core purpose is clear enough for a basic read operation.

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 only one parameter, game_id, with an enum but no description, and the description adds no parameter information. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate; it does not. The parameter name and enum values are fairly self-explanatory, but the description provides zero added meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('next server-selected queue round'), which clearly communicates what the tool returns. The clarification that it is 'not a claim about the active UI round' helps distinguish it from round-related observations in the UI, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 usage for reading the server-side queue round rather than the UI round, and the negative statement ('This is not a claim about the active UI round') gives an exclusion. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like qa_get_round_detail or qa_get_game_state, leaving some inference required.

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