game_action_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds real context beyond that: the status is durable and survives a server restart. The caveat that a completed batch is not proof of an exchange fill is a genuinely useful interpretive warning that an agent could not get from any structured field.

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 with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the interpretive caveat. Every sentence carries information that changes how the tool is used.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers durability, restart survival, and a result-interpretation pitfall. The remaining gap is the origin of requestId and rough expectations about the returned status values, but the definition is otherwise sufficient to call the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the single requestId property is undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. It does establish that requestId identifies a request whose status is being read, but it never says where the requestId originates, which is the key semantic an agent needs.

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 pairs the verb 'Read' with a specific resource, the 'durable status of a requestId', which is concrete enough to distinguish it from game_act, game_snapshot, or game_screenshot. It does not name the sibling that produces the requestId, so the relationship to game_act is only inferable.

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 rather than stated: an agent can guess this is the polling tool for an action that outlives the initial call, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given. Nothing directs the agent away from game_snapshot when it wants current state rather than a settled request outcome.

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