setup_game

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

No annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses output contents (draft pool, strategy cards, speaker order), a useful trait, but does not state whether setup is deterministic/random (only 'random faction draft pool' is noted), whether it mutates game state, or reads vs. writes. Enough to be usable but with gaps.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose, outputs, and default behavior. Front-loaded with the core action and every sentence conveys information without redundancy.

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?

For a generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately states what is produced and default behavior. It stops short of documenting return structure or mutation side effects, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already defines player_count, expansions, and faction_pool_size with ranges, defaults, and enum options. The description adds only a high-level summary of defaults ('Player count and expansions default to game context') and doesn't clarify per-parameter syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Generate a game setup for N players.' Explicitly names the concrete outputs (faction draft pool, strategy cards, speaker order), which distinguishes it from sibling generators like suggest_map and analyze_slices. An agent can identify this as the setup-creation tool without opening the schema.

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?

Provides implied context ('The LLM can then reason about balance and strategy') and default behavior tied to game context, which hints at when it's used as a starting point. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings, nor when not to use it, nor prerequisites.

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