interaction_faq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'quick-reference' outcomes, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like response format, potential rate limits, or whether it requires authentication. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get quick-reference interaction outcomes'), making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the complexity implied by 'adjacent mechanic combinations' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'interaction outcomes' entail, how they are formatted, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is applied as it doesn't introduce confusion or omissions regarding parameters.

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 states the tool 'Get quick-reference interaction outcomes for adjacent mechanic combinations', which specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('interaction outcomes'), but is vague about what 'adjacent mechanic combinations' means in this context. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_game_rules' or 'simulate_move', which might also provide game-related information.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_game_rules', 'simulate_move', or 'analyze_difficulty', the description doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred, such as for quick checks versus detailed simulations, leaving usage context unclear.

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