game_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it is a guide, implying read-only behavior but does not confirm no side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. No additional context such as output format or data source is given.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key content areas. It is front-loaded with the main idea. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., enumerated points), it is concise and clear.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. However, it doesn't specify what the output looks like (e.g., formatted text, JSON) or the expected scope (e.g., covers all game aspects). For a comprehensive guide, more context on return format would help.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details since none exist. Baseline score is 4, and the description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 it's a detailed how-to-play guide covering rate limits, tips, and mechanics. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose as an informational resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like feeding_guide or economy_rules, which may also provide guides on specific aspects.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify contexts (e.g., 'use for general overview') or exclusions (e.g., 'not for specific mechanics'). An agent has no basis to choose this over other guide-like tools.

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