start_local_game

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that startup is asynchronous, that the player ID is assigned by the host rather than chosen by the caller, and that only one controlled game may run at a time. It does not cover failure modes, what happens if a game is already running, or what the call returns.

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 paragraphs, mode description front-loaded, then the non-networked path, then the concurrency limit — no filler. The wording is clipped nearly to notes ("Network mode runs host + Python ENet relay + a controlled player"), which is efficient but slightly telegraphic.

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 one-parameter launch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: which mode to pick, that readiness is asynchronous, how to confirm readiness via a named sibling, and the single-game limit. The main residual gap is that it never says what the launch call itself yields or how a failed start surfaces.

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 single parameter is undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining both boolean branches in operational terms — what infrastructure is spun up in each mode and which player is produced. It stops short of stating the default (schema says true) or any side effects tied to the flag.

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?

"Launch a local test match" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description immediately splits into the two operating modes (networked host + ENet relay + controlled player vs. single engine vs. sandbox AI). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names join_lan_game as the contrasting path, so the local-vs-LAN boundary is left to inference.

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 explicitly states the two usage branches: networked=true for the host/relay setup, networked=false for an engine against a sandbox AI. It also gives the follow-up procedure (poll player_status until ready, use the host-assigned player ID) and a concurrency constraint (one controlled game at a time). Only the explicit when-not/alternative-tool guidance is missing.

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