check_multiplayer_code

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

No annotations provided, and the description only implies a read-only check. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it modifies state. For a checking tool, more behavioral detail (e.g., 'Read-only, no side effects') would be expected.

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?

Very concise: one header line, bullet list of detections, and usage note. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it detects but does not describe the return format (e.g., 'Returns a report with pass/fail and details'). This is a gap given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described as 'The multiplayer code to check'. The description repeats this but adds no new semantics. Since the schema already fully defines the parameter, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Check multiplayer code before deployment' and lists specific issues it detects (rate limiting, field names, etc.). It is distinct from siblings like 'diagnose_multiplayer_issues' which likely handles runtime issues, while this is for pre-deployment.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use when: Before finalizing code, or when debugging.' Provides clear context. However, no mention of when not to use or alternatives, though the sibling list provides implicit differentiation.

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