observe_state

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it promises the call never mutates game state and never sends input, and it discloses the one side effect (writing a new local PNG when the screenshot is requested). That file write usefully explains why readOnlyHint is false despite the read-only framing, so the two are reconcilable rather than contradictory. It stops short of describing cost or latency for the screenshot path.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the optional side effect, then the safety guarantee. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should convey what the returned state contains and how format changes it. It signals the return is the complete player-known state, which is helpful, but the format enum and the exact shape of the observation remain unspecified.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only partly meets it. It clarifies that include_screenshot is optional and has a local-file side effect, but the format enum (text vs json) is never explained, leaving the agent to guess at output differences.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading the player-known complete state. That is clear enough to distinguish an observation tool from a mutation tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling read_changes, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names alone.

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 never says when to call this versus read_changes, health, or project_cell, nor when not to call it. The only usage-adjacent information is that the screenshot is optional, which is a parameter note rather than routing guidance.

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