cpu_onboarding

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains what the tool returns, that it takes no input, that the brief must be paraphrased in the player's language and never read verbatim, and that pure explanation steps close automatically without confirmation. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to know.

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?

Although long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, output, invocation timing, delivery rules, and step-closing behavior. The most critical guidance (when to call, how to use the brief) is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema data.

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 zero-input status/guidance tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers what data is returned, when to call it, how to interpret the brief, how to handle language, and special behavior for explanation-only steps. An agent has everything it needs to invoke and use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description reinforces it with 'No input,' which aligns perfectly. Since there are no parameters to elaborate, the baseline of 4 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 clearly states a specific purpose: reporting where the player stands in the six-step onboarding sequence and what to cover next. It details the exact output (N/6 step, phase, finished/skipped status, current step brief) without ambiguity, and its role is distinct from the mutation-focused onboarding siblings like cpu_complete_onboarding_step or cpu_skip_onboarding.

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 gives explicit invocation timing: 'Call it right after cpu_authenticate for a player you have not walked through yet, and again whenever you are unsure what they already know.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with cpu_skip_onboarding or cpu_complete_onboarding_step as alternatives.

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