diagnose_multiplayer_issues

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the output (checklist with solutions), but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires permissions, or is read-only. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 short and well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded and bullet-pointed trigger conditions. Every sentence adds value, and the emoji is not distracting.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies when to use it and what to expect. It could optionally mention the format of the checklist, but it is sufficiently complete for the intended use.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description already covers the intended usage. No further parameter explanation is needed, earning the baseline 4.

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 diagnoses common multiplayer issues, listing specific symptoms. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_multiplayer_guide' or 'check_multiplayer_code'.

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 explicitly lists user reports that indicate when to use the tool (e.g., 'Players not visible', 'Connection failed'). It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the given scenarios provide clear usage context.

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