create_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that bots auto-advance until the hero's turn or hand ends, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a creation tool.

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 concise: a short paragraph plus a bullet-like list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the key purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is quite complete. It explains the auto-advance behavior and each parameter. However, it doesn't mention how to reference the created table (e.g., table ID), though siblings like get_table_state imply it. Still, nearly comprehensive.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section that explains each parameter: seats (2-9), small_blind (chips), big_blind (> small_blind), starting_stack, hero_seat (seat index), bot_profile (options like 'mixed'). Constraints and ranges are given, adding meaning beyond the schema's default values.

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 'Create a new simulated no-limit hold'em table and deal the first hand.' This specifies the action (create), resource (table), and type (no-limit hold'em). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tables (which lists existing tables) and close_table (which destroys).

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 does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or situations where this tool should be avoided. There is no explicit guidance on context of use.

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