galgame_action

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

The description reveals that the engine validates format, updates a save, and returns next scene context. However, it does not specify whether the update is destructive, if there are permission requirements, or what happens on validation failure. With no annotations, the description partially covers behavioral traits.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action ('submit a round of player actions'). It wastes no words, though the parameter details could be separated more clearly. The structure is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity, the description covers the essential functionality. However, it lacks details on what the returned context looks like and how errors are handled. With no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains 'choice' accepts A/B/C or free text, and 'narrative' should be a complete four-paragraph narrative. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 submits a round of player actions with choice and narrative components. It distinguishes from sibling tools (galgame_start, galgame_status) by focusing on active gameplay input, but could be more explicit about the game context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after starting a game) or when to stop using it. The description merely states what it does, not the appropriate usage context.

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