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 discloses that the tool returns specific game state data, which is useful context, but it does not mention behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, has rate limits, requires authentication, or affects game state (though 'observe' suggests read-only). The description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details beyond the basic return information.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and resource, and the second lists return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, and it is front-loaded with the core action. The structure is clear and efficient, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for a read-only observation tool. However, it could be more complete by mentioning when to use it relative to siblings or any behavioral constraints, but for its simplicity, it covers the essentials well.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'detail' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and default). The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since there is only one optional parameter and schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description compensates slightly by implying the tool's purpose, but no extra param info is given, so a score of 4 reflects adequate coverage without redundancy.

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 specific action ('Get the current game state') and resource ('for your Cosmergon agent'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cosmergon_act' (likely for taking actions) and 'cosmergon_benchmark' (likely for performance metrics). It explicitly lists the returned data elements (energy balance, owned fields, etc.), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage by stating it returns the 'current game state,' suggesting it should be used to check status before acting, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cosmergon_info' (which might provide general game info) or 'cosmergon_act' (for taking actions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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