conversion_report

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and leaves key behavior unstated: whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires prior sync_games/backfill_game_details runs, how expensive the computation is, or any pagination/limits on the returned games. It does describe the report's sections, which is some credit, but not the operating characteristics.

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?

It is front-loaded with the population definition, which is the right ordering, but it is a single run-on sentence with nested parentheticals and a trailing orphan clause about collapse_type. Dense but not well structured.

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?

For a 6-parameter analytic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does enumerate the report's contents (frequency, endings, collapsing move with phase/clock/motifs, drop-below-50 point, newest n games), so return content is reasonably covered. Parameter meaning and prerequisites remain incomplete.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does: 'threshold' and 'n' are explained in passing, but 'color', 'last_n', and 'time_class' are never mentioned, and the relationship between 'n' and 'last_n' is left ambiguous. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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 precisely defines the population the report covers (games where win chance crossed the threshold but no win resulted) and enumerates the outputs, which distinguishes it from weakness_report and generic analysis tools. However, it never states an operational verb ('analyze', 'aggregate') and reads as a data definition rather than a description of what calling the tool does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing against the many overlapping siblings (missed_opportunities, weakness_report, worst_moments, tilt_report). weakness_report is mentioned only to define the threshold-counting rule, not as an alternative to choose between.

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