game_time_scale

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only states the get/set duality. It does not mention what 'timing info' includes, what effect setting time_scale has on the running game, whether a project must be running, or any side effects of changing the value.

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 six-word sentence with no wasted words, and the core operation is front-loaded. The 'and timing info' clause is somewhat vague, but the overall structure is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), so a short description is nearly sufficient. However, it never explains what 'timing info' is returned, how the set action behaves, or the consequences of altering time_scale, leaving an agent to infer these critical details.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters: action ('get or set. Default: get') and timeScale ('Time scale value (for set)'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the target resource, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Get/set') against a concrete resource ('Engine.time_scale'), making the core operation unambiguous. The trailing 'and timing info' is vague, but it does not obscure the primary purpose and the tool is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as game_pause, game_wait, and game_performance.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Overlapping siblings like game_wait, game_pause, and the generic game_get_property/game_set_property pair could plausibly be chosen instead, but the description never addresses these trade-offs or gives any usage context.

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