new_game

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: if the opponent moves first, its move is already reflected in the returned state. However, it says nothing about session identity/persistence, what the returned state contains, or the cost of calling it repeatedly.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (the opponent may already have moved) is placed where it will be read. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema is fully self-documented. What is missing for a zero-annotation game-creation tool is lifecycle context: how the new game relates to play_move/get_state and what happens to an existing game.

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% — every one of the 7 parameters carries its own description, including seed, opening, play_as and opponent trade-offs. The description adds nothing on top, which is the correct baseline when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Start a game against a pyplAI algorithm'), and the sibling set (play_move, get_state, end_game) makes the lifecycle stage unambiguous. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the differentiation a 5 requires, but an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that this must precede play_move, and no note about whether calling it again discards the current game. The only routing hint ('See list_games') lives in the schema's game parameter, not the description.

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