add_timer_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait (timing based on action ticks, not wall-clock time) but fails to explain key behaviors like repetition semantics, cancellation, persistence, or side effects. The parameters 'every' and 'phase' suggest periodic behavior but are not described.

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 highly concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. While front-loaded with the core concept, it omits crucial details, making it more of a teaser than a complete specification.

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 six parameters, three required, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and a context with many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain how to construct arguments or what to expect on invocation, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level explanations. It doesn't clarify what 'effect' means, the role of 'every', 'phase', 'args', or the default values. The only implicit hint is that the effect applies to an actor.

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 applies an actor effect on discrete action ticks, distinguishing it from wall-clock-based effects. However, it doesn't specify the nature of the effect or how it relates to sibling effects like add_collision_effect or add_click_effect. The verb 'apply' is specific, and the resource is the actor, but the tool's name already conveys a timer effect.

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?

It provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention coexistence with other effect tools or prerequisites. The only clue is 'discrete action ticks' which implies a use case, but there's no direct comparison.

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