submit_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behavioral traits: this is a long-polling interface that blocks/wait after execution, which is crucial information not inferable from the schema alone. However, it doesn't disclose other important aspects like error conditions, timeout behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when the game ends versus when it's the player's next turn.

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 appropriately concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial behavioral information about the long-polling nature. No wasted words or redundant information. Could potentially be improved with slightly more structured formatting.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the long-polling behavior which is important context, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (though no output schema exists), error conditions, or how the action_data should be structured beyond being JSON. Given the mutation nature of 'submit' and lack of annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '动作数据JSON字符串' (action data JSON string) which aligns with the schema's action_data description but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as '提交博弈决策' (submit game decision/action), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_game_state or join_game by focusing on action submission rather than retrieval or joining. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar action tools that might exist in other contexts.

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 implied usage context by mentioning it's a '长轮询接口' (long-polling interface) that waits for the next turn or game end after execution. This suggests when to use it (during active gameplay turns) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide clear alternatives among the sibling tools. No prerequisites or comparison to other action-related tools are mentioned.

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