get_game_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a 'free reference read' implying no side effects, and lists the returned data. It does not explicitly mention authentication requirements, but states 'No session needed' which suggests no login. Overall, it provides good behavioral context.

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 sentences: first states the main purpose and lists components, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 output schema and zero parameters, the description fully covers the return value by enumerating all key components (resource catalog, building costs, reveal-cost params, contract addresses, recipe count). It also references a sibling for more detail, making it complete for planning purposes.

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 and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the return structure in detail, compensating for the lack of output schema. For a parameterless tool, this is well done.

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 returns the game rulebook, listing specific components like resource catalog, building costs, reveal-cost params, contract addresses, and recipe count. It uses a specific verb 'Return' and distinguishes from sibling 'list_recipes'.

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 advises calling it once for grounding planning and notes no session needed. It also references 'list_recipes' for full recipe graph, providing an alternative. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but the context is clear.

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