montecarlo_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions recording a result and getting the next bet amount, but omits important context such as whether the system must be initialized first, side effects of recording, error handling, or the format of the returned bet amount. This is insufficient for safe usage.

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, direct sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it loses a point for omitting helpful 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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., initialization), what happens on invalid input, or the structure of the returned 'next bet amount'. A more complete description would address these.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'result', which already provides a description ('The result of the bet') and enum values. The description adds no new information beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Record a bet result (win or loss) and get the next bet amount'. It specifies the verb (record), resource (bet result), and output (next bet amount), distinguishing it from sibling tools like montecarlo_init or montecarlo_status.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling record tools for different betting systems, the agent lacks guidance on selecting this one over others, relying only on the tool name for context.

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