runtime_assert

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial context about the dependency on game-bridge and the requirement that the game must be running, which is not captured by annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and prerequisites without redundancy or 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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers dependencies and invocation timing but omits return/result behavior, error semantics, and how assertion results are reported. The annotations provide a safety profile but not execution context, leaving a moderate gap.

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 100%, so each parameter is described in the input schema. The tool description provides an overview of assertion types but does not add per-parameter syntax or conditional logic beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool performs runtime assertions on a running game, listing five distinct categories (node state, scene structure, screen text, performance, screenshot comparison). It clearly distinguishes from workflow-bound tools by noting it can be called anytime without workflow.dev_loop.

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?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance ('agent 可任意时刻调用，不必走 workflow.dev_loop') and prerequisites (requires game_bridge_install and a running game). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for specific scenarios.

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