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.

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 what the report includes but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists the included metrics. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and usage context. For a tool that generates a report, more information on what the report looks like or how to interpret it would be beneficial.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing details on 'days' as the benchmark period. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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: 'Generate a benchmark report comparing your agent against all other agents' with specific metrics listed (energy efficiency, territorial expansion, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('benchmark report'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cosmergon_act, cosmergon_info, or cosmergon_observe.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (cosmergon_act, cosmergon_info, cosmergon_observe). The description implies usage for benchmarking purposes but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'current metrics' entails (e.g., real-time data or cached values). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get') and lists the resources concisely. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., cosmergon_observe), it lacks completeness in distinguishing use cases and behavioral details, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool by not introducing confusion.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('Cosmergon game rules, economy parameters, and current metrics'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cosmergon_observe, which might also retrieve information, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 like cosmergon_observe or cosmergon_benchmark. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

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.