claim_victory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation action ('claim victory') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the claim is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., game state changes), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (claiming victory) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., success/failure outcomes, error handling) and doesn't address the tool's role among siblings. For a tool that likely changes game state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100% description coverage, with 'gameId' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format or validation rules for gameId). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('claim victory') and the condition ('if opponent abandoned the game'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resign_board_game' or 'abort_board_game', which might handle similar game-ending scenarios, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by specifying the condition ('if opponent abandoned the game'), but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'resign_board_game' for self-resignation) or mention any prerequisites. Without explicit usage context or exclusions, it offers limited practical direction.

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