join_game

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses critical behavioral traits: this is a long-polling interface that blocks until match success and player's turn, or times out. This reveals important blocking behavior and timeout characteristics not evident from the 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 - two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and critical behavioral characteristics. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 strong context about the blocking/long-polling behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens after successful match (e.g., returns match details, triggers next step) or typical timeout duration, but covers the essential operational characteristics well.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters completely. The description doesn't add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

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 specific action ('加入游戏匹配队列' - join game matchmaking queue) and resource (game matching system). It distinguishes from siblings like get_game_state or submit_action by focusing on queue entry rather than game state retrieval or action submission.

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 clear context about when to use this tool - when a player wants to join a matchmaking queue. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the behavioral description implies this is for queue entry rather than other game operations.

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