rules_adjacency

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the content of the output (yield, tiles required, enabling/obsolescing tech/civic) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled (e.g., unknown district), or any side effects. For a query-like tool, this is a notable gap.

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 brief and to the point, with no wasted words. The structure is a single sentence with an explanatory clause, which is efficient. It could be slightly clearer in phrasing, but overall it is appropriately concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It mentions the fields included (yield, tiles required, tech/civic) but does not clarify whether the result is a list, array, or object, nor does it cover edge cases like nonexistent districts or pagination. For a single-parameter tool, it is partially complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 schema provides no description for the 'district' parameter, so the description must compensate. It gives example values that hint at the expected format (internal names like 'DISTRICT_THEATER') but does not clarify case sensitivity, full list of valid values, or whether display names are accepted. This adds some value but leaves ambiguity.

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 that the tool returns an adjacency bonus table for a district, with examples of district names (Campus, Harbor, DISTRICT_THEATER). It identifies the resource and the specific domain (adjacency bonuses), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rules_query or rules_lookup, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The usage context is only implied by the description itself, which is insufficient for an agent to choose correctly among many sibling tools.

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