Get the default game LuaStateProxy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: 'cost=medium', the active-client prerequisite, the observable output class (structured-observation), and a failure-recovery pointer to tool-schema. It repeats 'read-only' twice but adds genuine 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?

Front-loaded with purpose then compact key=value metadata. Slightly redundant in restating read-only ('idempotency=read-only' plus 'Safety: read-only') and echoing the signature, but no wasted sentences overall.

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, yet the description enumerates the returned metadata (Id/IsActorState/Event/Actors plus registry Reference) and states the active-client prerequisite, so an agent has enough to call and interpret it. The only gap is a lack of sibling routing guidance.

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 100% and the single optional threadContext parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Signature: { threadContext: number? }' restates the schema without adding format or defaulting semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource (return game-state metadata: Id/IsActorState/Event/Actors plus a registry Reference), which is specific enough to distinguish it from get-game-info and get-lua-state. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

It supplies operational context ('Phase: observe', 'Requires: active-client') that implies when the tool is valid, but never states when to prefer it over get-game-info, get-lua-state, or get-lua-state-actors. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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