minigame_checklist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says nothing about side effects, return values, whether it reads or mutates, what the checklist covers, or what happens on invocation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a complete absence of behavioral context.

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 extremely short, which reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. There is no structure, no front-loading of critical constraints, and the single phrase carries almost no actionable information. Conciseness only earns credit when the content is complete enough to be compressed.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, its parameter semantics, its relationship to the workflow, or its return behavior. An agent has essentially no information to call this tool correctly.

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% for all three parameters (loop, mode, players), and the description adds no meaning to any of them. With no enum constraints and no param-level documentation, the description was obligated to compensate for the gap but offers nothing. An agent cannot determine what loop, mode, or players should contain.

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 '小玩法 checklist（配合 generate_logic）' ('Mini-game checklist (to be used with generate_logic)') provides no verb or action — it merely restates the tool's name as a label. It hints at a relationship with generate_logic but never states what the tool actually does, whether it checks, validates, or generates something. It fails to distinguish itself from siblings beyond the vague pairing mention.

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 only usage guidance is the parenthetical '配合 generate_logic' (to be used with generate_logic), which implies it is used in conjunction with that sibling. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or what conditions select this tool over alternatives like inject_hint, diagnose, or recommend_workflow. The guidance is implied at best.

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