rules_scenario

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

Annotations provide idempotent and read-only hints. The description adds behavioral context by stating it covers priority, stack resolution, state-based actions, and triggers with rule citations. This is valuable beyond the 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?

Two sentences: first states the core action and scope, second lists covered topics. Highly efficient with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what rules aspects it covers. However, it could be improved by hinting at the output format (e.g., step-by-step text with citations).

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of 'scenario' does not add new meaning. It does not elaborate on response_format usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('game scenario'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'rules_interaction' or 'rules_lookup'. It also lists the covered aspects (priority, stack, state-based actions, triggers) which further clarifies its scope.

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 use for step-by-step scenario resolution but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like 'rules_interaction' or 'rules_lookup'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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