Environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses fog-of-war behavior (reports nothing about undiscovered cavern layers), error handling (returns error if no fort loaded), and build limitations (no savage flag). It also notes the payload is small and fixed-size, adding performance 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main payload and uses clarifying asides. Every sentence adds value, but the length could be slightly reduced by breaking into bullet points or trimming redundant phrasing like 'Small fixed-size payload.' Still, it remains well within acceptable bounds.

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 no output schema, the description must explain the return values and edge cases, which it does comprehensively: season, weather, temperature, freezing condition, biome alignment, cavern list, empty list behavior, and error response. It also addresses limitations like unavailable per-tile savagery, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description compensates by explaining what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which is appropriate given the output-focused nature of the tool.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only environmental status reporter, enumerating specific outputs (season, weather, temperature, freezing, biome alignments, cavern states). It distinguishes itself from siblings like geology and tile_region by focusing on ambient conditions and explicitly referencing geology's complementary fact.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to check ambient conditions, frozen water, biome alignment, cavern accessibility) and even suggests composition with geology(). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for cases like per-tile savagery, which is mentioned as unavailable.

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