solve_level

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It hints at computational aspects ('BFS solver') and outputs ('unsolvable diagnostics'), but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it modifies the level, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the diagnostics entail. For a zero-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without waste. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Run BFS solver') and includes key features concisely. Every word earns its place, making it highly effective for its length.

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 'BFS solver' and 'diagnostics', along with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., solution path, solvability status) or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer. For a solver tool in a level-editing context, this is inadequate.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document. It doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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 ('Run BFS solver') and target ('on current level'), with additional context about features like 'direction balance and unsolvable diagnostics'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'simulate_move' or 'simulate_playthrough' by focusing on automated solving rather than manual simulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential solving-related tools, keeping it at a 4 instead of 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a level loaded), exclusions (e.g., not for editing), or compare to siblings like 'analyze_difficulty' or 'validate_quality_gate'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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