autoplay_bots

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (advancing non-hero bots) and the stopping condition. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or authorization needs, which would enhance transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and condition. Every word is functional; there is no unnecessary information.

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 with one parameter and an output schema (not provided in description). The description explains behavior but omits details on parameter semantics and output. It is minimally complete for a straightforward automation tool.

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% for the 'table_id' parameter, and the description does not explain its meaning or usage. The agent must infer that it identifies the table, but no additional context is provided beyond the schema definition.

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 'advance' and the resource 'non-hero bots', and specifies the termination condition ('until it is the hero's turn or the hand ends'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_action' and 'get_pending_actions' by focusing on automated bot advancement.

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 automating bot turns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context from sibling tools helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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