paroli_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the primary effect (recording a result and computing next bet) but does not specify side effects like state mutation, idempotency, or potential errors (e.g., uninitialized system). The description is adequate but incomplete for full transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's two actions without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Score 5 reflects optimal conciseness for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic functionality but misses important context such as the need for prior initialization and the side effect of state modification. It is minimally complete but not robust for a fully autonomous agent.

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 'result' has an enum of 'win' and 'loss', which the description mentions as 'win or loss'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 records a bet result (win or loss) and returns the next bet amount. It is specific enough to distinguish from unrelated tools, but does not differentiate from other '*_record' siblings for different betting systems, which also record results. A score of 4 reflects strong clarity with room for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., requiring a prior initialization call) or context with sibling tools like 'paroli_init' or 'paroli_reset'. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool's name and context, which is insufficient. Score 2 indicates minimal guidance.

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