Read the game's state

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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the timeout covers the whole call including the promised dump, large worlds take longer, and the null-vs-zero distinction prevents misreading missing data. It also reveals that record bodies were previously parsed and discarded, adding historical context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well structured and front-loaded: first the core behavior, then each parameter, then return semantics. Every sentence adds useful information, including the concrete example of fields vs records. It is detailed without padding.

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?

Despite having zero schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining parameter roles, return semantics, null behavior, and the cross-side comparison use case. With an output schema present and readOnly annotations provided, nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the description carries full weight for the three parameters. It explains 'server' as switching to the dedicated server view, 'target' as addressing a specific client by name, and describes 'timeout' with a precise one-budget semantics and a performance caveat. This is substantive semantic value the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with 'Ask one side of the session what it currently sees, parsed,' which names a specific action, a concrete resource, and a precise scope. This clearly distinguishes it from general-purpose logs or capture tools among the siblings.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is useful, especially the explicit note that asking both sides at the same moment is the only way to answer 'the client reports no NPC'. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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