test_get_game_state

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'get a snapshot' implying read-only, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free, return format, error handling, or limitations. Lacks sufficient transparency for an unannotated tool.

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?

Single sentence, direct, and front-loaded with the action. No wasted words or redundant phrases.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should convey return expectations. It does not describe the structure of the snapshot, how the 'include' filter affects the result, or whether the operation is destructive. Under-specified for a tool with a filter parameter and no annotations.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds high-level context about game state contents but does not bridge the 'include' parameter categories (players, units, etc.) with the listed 'autoloads, constants, configuration'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states a 'get' operation on 'game state' and lists example contents (autoloads, constants, configuration). It is specific in verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling test_* tools like test_get_info.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of the 'include' filter, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema.

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