start_game

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Start (or restart)', which hints at state reset but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., initial room description) or that restarting discards existing progress. The gameplay instructions are about the AI's behavior, not the tool's side effects or response format.

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 relatively concise but includes a lengthy gameplay directive ('explore with look, move with go north etc.') that is not directly about the tool's invocation. This extra instruction could belong in the 'act' tool description, making the tool's own description slightly over-specified.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and gives some gameplay context. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., narrative text) or how it connects to sibling tools like 'act', leaving the overall workflow partially implied rather than explicit.

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 already fully documents the single 'gameId' parameter with a clear description and default value (100% schema coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 starts or restarts a text-adventure game, using a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('text-adventure game'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'act' (for in-game actions) and 'list_games' (for listing available games), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is the entry point for gameplay, as it instructs the AI to 'explore with look, move with go north, etc.' after starting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use act for actions after starting') or state when not to use it, such as when a game is already running.

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