act

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states that it sends a command and returns the game's response, which implies a state-changing operation, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., must have an active game), or failure behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the action and the return value. It omits an explicit note about requiring an active game, but the phrase 'current game' and the existence of a 'start_game' sibling mitigate this gap. Slight incompleteness prevents a perfect score.

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 schema already provides a detailed description of the single 'command' parameter with concrete examples (e.g., 'go north', 'take the lantern'). The tool description adds generic examples but no additional meaning beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sends a command to the current game, with a specific verb ('send') and resource ('command to the current game'). The examples (move, look, take, use, examine) distinguish it from sibling tools like list_games and start_game by focusing on in-game actions.

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 implies when to use: when the agent needs to perform an action in the game. It clearly indicates the context ('current game') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though sibling names and the phrase 'current game' provide contextual guidance.

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