qa_get_game_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the sentinel return value 'not_observable' when no sidecar/bridge is configured, and 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation. It does not describe what is returned in the observable case, but the key behavioral quirk is 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 a single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the conditional fallback. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless read tool, the description is mostly sufficient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves a gap by not describing the shape or content of the returned game state when it is observable. The not_observable fallback is explained, but the normal success payload is not.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('optional instrumented live game state'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like qa_get_current_session or qa_get_round_detail, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'optional' and 'not_observable' wording implies it applies only when instrumentation is present, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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