how_to_play

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds real behavioral context: the call is stateless ('needs no game'), safe to invoke anytime, and returns Markdown. It also discloses the fallback behavior when topic is omitted (index + introduction). This is solid disclosure for a read-only help endpoint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense topic enumeration earns its space because it documents the single unstructured parameter. It is somewhat sprawling as one long paragraph, but there is little filler.

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 one-parameter help tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it returns (Markdown), the value space of topic, the stateless no-game behavior, and when to read it. No output schema exists, so return values are appropriately described inline.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only declares a bare string, so the description must compensate — and it does extensively. It explains the no-argument default (index/intro), enumerates valid topic values (start, turn_loop, quiet_turns, batches, verify, blockers, diplomacy, rules, first_turn), defines 'all', and explains that a tool name yields that tool's key-by-key reference.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it serves the server's shipped playbook as on-demand help, with a clear scope (overview, playbook topics, or per-tool reference). An agent can tell it is a documentation tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'reference' tool, whose role may overlap.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read a topic once, when you first need it' and clarifies it 'needs no game and works at any time.' It enumerates the trigger conditions (first need of a topic, needing a tool's full key reference). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead when in-game state is present.

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