game_physics_2d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or any permissions/constraints. The description only states the function, not behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise (4 words), but this conciseness sacrifices necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with key information; it simply states the domain without elaboration.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how actions work, or how to use the parameters effectively. The context signals indicate moderate complexity, yet the description is minimal.

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 already describes all 5 parameters with full coverage. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, providing only the domain context. No parameter-specific details are enhanced.

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 'Area2D queries and 2D point/shape intersections' clearly identifies the tool's domain (2D physics queries) and distinguishes it from siblings like game_physics_3d. However, it could be more specific about the exact capabilities (e.g., collision detection, space queries).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_raycast or game_physics_body. The context implies it's for Area2D queries, but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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