land_inject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that context is forced this turn and that additional_context is returned before the prompt, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, or the shape of the injected context.

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?

Four very short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and return value, contain no filler. The cryptic fragments ('Hooks inject. Tools do not.') are inefficient for comprehension even though they are brief.

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 and no annotations, leaving the description as the only source of truth. It fails to define 'LAND context', explain how additional_context should be used, or clarify when the forced injection is warranted, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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 an empty schema, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a 4 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 states an effect ('Force LAND context this turn') and a return field ('additional_context'), but 'LAND context' is undefined domain jargon. An agent cannot identify the resource or domain, and the distinction from siblings like trust_freeze or decide is not made clear.

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 line 'Hooks inject. Tools do not.' hints at a manual injection scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools. Usage remains largely inferential.

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