Remote-spy controls and diagnostics

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (destructive/non-idempotent/write); the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: configuration is a patch affecting only future captures, pausing preserves blocking/GUI logging, restarting expires IDs/views, stop unloads GUI/hooks, starting another engine stops the previous, and Ketamine cannot block incoming RemoteEvents and its ignore rules only reset with direction=Both. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a mutating tool.

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 the critical 'WRITES LIVE GAME STATE' warning, and most sentences carry actionable information. It is dense and run-on in places (the signature block and behavioral notes could be structured as bullets), but there is little dead weight.

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 22-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, key parameter relationships, engine semantics, and safety/state effects well. It partially covers returns (status/controls descriptions) but not the other operations' output, leaving a modest gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by mapping parameters to operations (limit/offset/direction filters apply to controls, direction=Both governs Ketamine reset-controls) and disclosing engine default and switching behavior. It goes beyond enumerating the schema but does not fully cover all 22 parameter interactions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Controls the selected spy') and enumerates the operation families (lifecycle, configure, pause/resume, block/unblock, ignore/unignore, reset-controls), so an agent knows the tool's scope. However it doesn't differentiate itself from closely related siblings like configure-remote-spy, ensure-remote-spy, block-remote, ignore-remote, or monitor-remote, which overlap heavily with its operations.

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 explains what each operation does (status reports settings, controls lists rules, reset-controls clears rules) which implies when to pick them, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance despite multiple overlapping siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated, matching a 3.

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