simulate_move

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'simulates' a move, implying a read-only or predictive operation, but doesn't clarify if it modifies any state, requires authentication, has side effects, or what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure, new position). This is inadequate for a tool with potential game logic implications.

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 front-loads the core action ('simulate a single slide move'). There's no wasted wording, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the game context.

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 of game simulation tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the simulation's purpose (e.g., testing moves without affecting state), expected outputs, or how it integrates with other tools like 'get_game_rules'. For a tool that likely impacts game logic, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (direction with enum, fromX, fromY). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining coordinate systems or default behaviors. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'simulates a single slide move from a position', which clarifies the action (simulate) and resource (slide move). However, it's vague about what 'slide' refers to (likely a game element like a tile or character) and doesn't distinguish it from similar tools like 'move_tile' or 'simulate_playthrough', leaving ambiguity in its specific role.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., game state), or compare it to siblings like 'move_tile' (which might perform actual moves) or 'simulate_playthrough' (which might simulate multiple moves). This lack of differentiation makes it hard for an agent to choose appropriately.

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