cosmergon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Execute a game action' but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether actions are read-only or destructive, authentication needs, rate limits, or expected outcomes. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple potential actions.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists examples. However, the list of actions is somewhat long and could be streamlined for better readability, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity of a tool with multiple action types and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage contexts, or expected results, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool across different scenarios.

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 100%, so the schema documents the 'action' and 'params' parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing example action types (e.g., 'place_cells, create_field'), but doesn't explain their semantics or how 'params' relates to them beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool 'Execute[s] a game action' and lists examples like 'place_cells, create_field, create_cube', which clarifies its general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'game action' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like cosmergon_benchmark or cosmergon_info, which might involve different types of operations in the same game context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists action types but doesn't explain contexts for choosing one over another or mention sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the action names alone.

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