first_contact_assessment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool performs a lookup and assessment, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, how it handles unknown species, whether it requires any authentication, or what the response format/error behavior is. This lack of transparency is a significant 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the trigger ('Given a species name') and then lists the key assessment dimensions. There is no wasted wording or redundant information; every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

The tool is simple (one input, no output schema), and the description does cover the main output dimensions (warp capability, government type, recommended first contact approach). However, it lacks guidance on usage context, edge cases, and behavioral details, making it only minimally complete for an agent to invoke without further clarification.

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 already thoroughly documents the single 'species' parameter with description and examples, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating 'species name', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up' and 'assess'), names the resource (species on Memory Alpha), and clearly states the output dimensions (warp capability, government type, first contact approach). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_memory_alpha or get_article, which are general lookups, and from prime_directive_check or diplomatic_scenario, which focus on different aspects.

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 opening 'Given a species name' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools might be alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or comparison to related tools like species_info or prime_directive_check.

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