get_save_info

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver one genuinely valuable behavioral fact: it functions without the game bridge. It says nothing about data freshness/staleness, whether the save file is read-only access, or what happens when no save exists, leaving real 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload and closed with the operational caveat. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be cut without losing 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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-free read tool with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by naming the returned fields and the offline capability. Only the absence of failure-mode or freshness behavior keeps it from being fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 gives a specific verb-resource pairing by enumerating exactly what is returned: newest save name, in-game day/time text, city, weather, and moon phase. That is far more informative than the name alone and clearly separates it from data-heavy siblings like get_state or get_daily_report, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'works even when the game bridge is offline' clause signals this is the fallback source of save/clock/weather context when live game data is unavailable. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_state or when it is inappropriate.

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