game_get_errors

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

It discloses the stateful behavior of remembering the last call to get only new messages, but does not explain what happens if there are no new errors, whether errors are cleared after retrieval, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, more depth would be beneficial.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and informative, with no wasted space.

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 polling tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys its purpose and basic behavior. However, it could be more complete by specifying the return format or clarifying the statefulness more explicitly.

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 has nothing to add. With zero parameters and full schema coverage (empty schema), a baseline of 4 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'new push_error/push_warning messages', and includes a scope 'since last call'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover other game functions.

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 implies usage for retrieving new error/warning messages after a previous call, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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