oscarsgrind_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic action and output but fails to detail behavioral traits such as state management, requirement for prior initialisation, or what happens if used without a session. This leaves significant gaps for a betting system tool.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and outcome. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no extraneous content.

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?

The description explains the input and output adequately for a simple action, but it lacks system-level context. It does not mention that this tool is part of the Oscar's Grind system, requires prior initialisation via an init tool, or what the returned 'next bet amount' looks like (no output schema). Given the sibling tools indicating a family of systems, this omission is notable.

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 covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply echoing 'result'. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 ('Record a bet result') and the outcome ('get the next bet amount'), identifying the verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling record tools, the tool name 'oscarsgrind_record' implicitly distinguishes it within the Oscar's Grind system.

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 implies usage after a bet outcome is known, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other record tools (e.g., cocomo_record, martingale_record) or prerequisites like initialisation via an init tool. The context is implicit and lacks exclusions.

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