get_root

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The word 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, and the description specifies the output (root instance and services), but it does not mention potential errors, performance implications, or any special permissions required. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('Get') and resource ('root instance'), making it highly concise and well-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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns (root instance and top-level services), which is sufficient for an agent to understand its function. It could elaborates on edge cases or error scenarios, but these are not critical for a basic getter.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is helpful. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 function: get the root instance (game, ref 0) and its top-level services. The verb 'Get' and specific resource ('root instance') make the purpose unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like get_children or get_by_path.

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 for retrieving the root instance and top-level services, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives for other scenarios, such as getting children or searching.

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