game_state

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral traits. It makes clear this is a read-only, high-level summary operation with a 'single call' convenience. It doesn't elaborate on return format or failure behavior, but for a zero-parameter query tool the description gives sufficient behavioral context.

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?

One sentence, directly to the point, front-loaded with the action and contents of the summary. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with low complexity, this description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, at what granularity, and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to annotate beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate: no parameter documentation burden exists.

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?

States a specific action ('Get a high-level summary') and a clear resource ('current game state'), then enumerates the fields covered: scene, game mode, level info, player status, and bro type. This clearly distinguishes it from targeted siblings like inspect_player or inspect_gameobject.

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 phrase 'Single call to orient yourself' communicates clear context for when the tool is useful: getting a broad overview of game state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when targeted inspection is needed).

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