get_opening_assessment

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: a mandatory-once invocation window, confidence-tagged output including rejected options, and the important disclosure that civilizations missing from the strategy library get an honest degraded assessment rather than fabricated abilities. That last point is a genuinely valuable expectation-setter about output quality that no structured field carries.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and dimensions, then timing, then the caveat about unlisted civilizations — each sentence earns its place. Minor redundancy: '含备选与不推荐,带置信度' partly restates what the output schema already declares.

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?

With an output schema present and no input parameters, the description only needs to establish purpose, timing, and trust characteristics — all of which it covers. The remaining gap is relational: in a sibling set dense with advisors, it never positions itself relative to get_strategic_map, get_power_balance, or get_settle_advisor.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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?

Names a specific deliverable (opening four-dimension assessment) and spells out the dimensions it composes (civilization ability utilization × map geography × neighbor threat) plus the output shape (recommended route with alternatives, non-recommended options, confidence). It does not name or contrast itself with overlapping advisor siblings such as get_strategic_map, get_power_balance, or get_settle_advisor, so an agent cannot fully rule out overlap from the text alone.

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?

Gives a concrete timing rule — call once during turns T1–T5, and re-call later if a route review is wanted — which is unusually explicit guidance for a tool of this type. However, it offers no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_strategic_map or get_expert_playbook instead), so the 'vs alternatives' half of the dimension is unaddressed.

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