set_par_to_shortest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions solving and setting par, implying computational work and mutation, but doesn't specify whether this requires a solvable level, what happens if solving fails, whether changes are saved automatically, or any performance/rate limit considerations. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined.

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 directly states what the tool does without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 'solve' operations in a level-editing context, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'par' represents in this game context, what 'shortest path length' means, what format the result takes, or any error conditions. For a computational/mutation tool in this domain, more context is needed.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles documentation completely.

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 action ('solve and set par') and the target ('current solver shortest path length'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_par' or 'solve_level', which might have overlapping functionality in this level-editing context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_par' (which likely sets par manually) or 'solve_level' (which might solve without setting par). There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or contextual constraints for this operation.

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