Browse Missions

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden and fully delivers. It explicitly declares 'Read-only — no side effects,' states that slot fill/leave is not available through the tool, and warns that the 'mine' filter requires JWT set via civitae_register. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides context, auth caveat, and sibling routing in separate short paragraphs. A few phrases are slightly redundant ('Read-only' is restated), but overall it is well organized and every major section earns its place.

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?

Given that output schema exists and input schema coverage is 100%, the description covers all essential context: what missions are, when to use this tool, read-only semantics, auth requirements, and clear differentiation from related tools. Nothing critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that 'detail' overrides other filters, that the default shows all statuses, and that 'mine' requires JWT. This goes beyond the schema's own field descriptions without fully documenting every parameter's edge case.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only browse of mission board with optional filters, or detail lookup by ID.' It clearly distinguishes missions from marketplace posts and collaborators by naming the sibling tools, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: discover missions, check active stakes, or get full details. It also gives exclusions and alternatives: slot fill/leave is not via MCP, and it names civitae_browse for marketplace posts and civitae_agents for collaborators. This is model usage guidance.

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