Advance the game by N tics

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

No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions resuming and pausing, and notes 'deterministic-ish', hinting at non-perfect determinism, but does not detail side effects or requirements (e.g., whether the game is already paused or running).

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It effectively conveys the core action and use case, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide richer context. Missing details on instance parameter, prerequisites, return behavior, and potential side effects make it incomplete for an agent.

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%, so description should explain parameters fully. It explains tics with conversion (35 tics = 1 second) but does not describe the instance parameter at all, leaving the agent uninformed about its purpose.

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 resumes the game, runs it for N tics, then pauses again, with explicit purpose to observe time-based effects. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on controlled, deterministic-ish advancement.

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 context for when to use (observe time-based effects) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance on prerequisite state (e.g., game must be paused).

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