choose_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Returns full playbook' but omits behavioral details like side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It is unclear if the tool is read-only or has any impact on the game state.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Pick your play style') and lists options. No redundant words or extraneous details.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, it could be improved by subtly clarifying that this is a selection, not a mutation, or by adding a brief note on the 'playbook' content.

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 only describes the parameter 'strategy' as a 'Strategy key' with enums. The description adds meaningful context by explaining each strategy's theme (e.g., green for impact/carbon, meme for specific tokens), which helps the agent select the correct value.

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's purpose: 'Pick your play style' and lists the exact strategies available. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'swap_token' or 'buy_egg' by focusing on strategy selection.

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 when a player wants to choose a strategy, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are mentioned.

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