cpu_skip_onboarding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action's effect: 'It closes all six steps with that reason and opens every game tool.' It also emphasizes the requirement that playerRequest must be the player's own words. While it doesn't mention reversibility or side effects on existing progress, the description is sufficiently transparent about the action's nature and conditions.

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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose. It opens with the action, then explains the parameter constraint, then the strict usage rule, and finally the outcome. It is structured clearly and front-loads the core purpose, though it could be slightly more concise 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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains when to call, what the parameter must contain, what happens (closes six steps and opens all game tools), and the crucial restriction against self-initiated calls. An agent can correctly determine when and how to invoke this tool from this description alone.

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 schema description covers the parameter fully: 'The words of the player asking to skip, quoted. Required, and never your own paraphrase.' The tool description reiterates this with 'playerRequest carries their own words, quoted, and it must not be empty.' Since schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no new semantic detail beyond reinforcement, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Close the whole introduction because the player asked to skip it.' It identifies the action (skip onboarding), the resource (introduction), and the trigger (player request). This distinguishes it from siblings like cpu_complete_onboarding_step (which completes a step) and cpu_restart_onboarding (which restarts).

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?

The description provides explicit usage rules: 'Never call this on your own initiative: not because the introduction feels slow, not to unblock a tool that refused, not to save a few turns.' It clearly states the only valid condition is an explicit request from the player, and says 'Without an explicit request from the player this call is out of bounds.' This is exemplary guidance.

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