test_placement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a dry-run (non-modifying) operation that both places a tile and solves. However, it doesn't mention what 'solve' entails (e.g., success/failure output, computational limits) or any side effects like temporary state changes.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste—every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the core action ('Dry-run placing one tile and solve'), followed by the critical constraint ('without modifying the draft').

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what 'solve' returns, error conditions). Given the complexity of a combined placement-and-solve operation, more context on output would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (x, y, type with enum). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying they're used for tile placement. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Dry-run placing one tile and solve') and resource ('the draft'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'place_tile' (which likely modifies) and 'solve_level' (which solves without placement). It explicitly mentions 'without modifying the draft' to differentiate from mutation tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Dry-run... without modifying') versus alternatives like 'place_tile' (which would modify) or 'solve_level' (which solves without placement testing). The 'without modifying' clause provides clear exclusion guidance.

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