cpu_get_game_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavior disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'No session needed', and describes the tool as delivering static facts read once, making its side-effect-free, idempotent nature clear. It also reveals a meaningful network behavior: how randomness is delivered determines what `cpu_reveal` does. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: core purpose is front-loaded, the listed data categories are all distinct and informative, and sibling routing is compactly included. It ends with short behavioral statements. Despite being a long paragraph, it is efficiently packed without repetition.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explains the return contents in enough detail for an agent to know what to expect: resource mappings, contract addresses, parameters, building index rows with fields, and the tool's role in the rulebook. It also covers authentication context and side-effect safety, so nothing critical is missing for a no-argument read-only configuration getter.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage and an empty properties object, so no parameter semantics are needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 identifies the tool as the entry point for the static rulebook of the active network and enumerates its contents: resource catalog, contract addresses, storage shelves, transport parameters, transit fees, reveal cost, randomness mechanics, trade parameters, and a building index. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that detail is not duplicated and pointing to `cpu_get_building`, `cpu_find_buildings`, `cpu_get_resource`, and `cpu_list_recipes` for fuller views.

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 explicit usage guidance: it is the read-once source for static configuration facts, and it names alternatives with their specific scopes — a single building, searching buildings by consumption/production/mining, a single resource, and recipes. This directly tells an agent when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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