game_os_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a non-destructive read operation, which is appropriate and clear. It does not disclose more nuanced behavior such as return shape or whether the info comes from the OS versus the game engine, but for a simple info query this is acceptable.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the action and lists the relevant information categories efficiently, making every word meaningful.

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-argument, straightforward info-retrieval tool, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide to call it. There is no output schema, so details about the exact format are missing, but the listed categories give a clear expectation of the returned subject matter.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter gap to fill. The baseline of 4 applies because the tool requires no arguments and the description's reference to specific info categories is sufficient for an agent to understand what the result would cover.

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 categories (platform, locale, screen, adapter, memory info), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like game_locale or game_performance, but the combination of OS-related categories is sufficiently distinct.

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 context is implied: an agent would use this when it needs system-level information such as platform or memory. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, or when not to use it.

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