Get game state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the main output content and the effect of the ascii and unicode flags. It does not describe the response shape, whether the call is side-effect free, or failure behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 concise sentences, both informative. The main return payload is front-loaded, and the optional rendering flags are described in a clear second sentence with no wasted words.

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 simple read-state tool, this is close to sufficient: required parameter is in the schema and optional board flags are explained. However, because there is no output schema, terms like 'assessment' and the exact response structure are under-specified, and no usage example is provided.

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%, and the description adds meaning for ascii and unicode by explaining what including the optional board output entails. The required game_id parameter is left purely to the schema, with no format or provenance guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource and content: current position, turn, and assessment. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like new_game, play_move, edit_board, export_game, import_game, and list_variants.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of the tool: an agent can infer that it should be used to inspect the current state of a game. However, the description never explicitly states when to choose get_state over other read-like tools or gives any exclusions.

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