Nash-Arena

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a long-polling interface that blocks until specific conditions (player's turn or game end). This reveals important performance characteristics not evident from the input schema alone.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose, the second explains the blocking behavior. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the blocking behavior well but doesn't describe what the game state response contains, error conditions, or how to interpret the 'game end' condition.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (room_id and mac_addr). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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: '获取当前游戏状态' (get current game state). It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('游戏状态'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_player_stats' or 'get_player_records' that might also retrieve game-related information.

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 some usage context by explaining it's a long-polling interface that blocks until the player's turn or game end. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_games' or 'join_game', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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