get_multiplayer_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a guide with code template and lists built-in features. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, though the tool appears read-only.

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 well-structured with sections (core concept, returns, built-in features, usage). It is informative without being overly verbose, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context about the tool's purpose, usage, and contents (code template, debug logger, error codes, etc.). It fully answers what the tool does and when to use it.

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?

No parameters are defined in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and the core concept, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 it is the primary entry for multiplayer guides, defines the core concept with a concrete example, and lists what is returned (complete guide with code template). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_multiplayer_code and diagnose_multiplayer_issues.

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 states 'Use when: User wants players to play together...' and mentions it's for any creative H5 game. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative sibling tools.

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