Fort status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It thoroughly details what is returned, including the nuanced definition of citizenship and the time window for recent_deaths, and explicitly mentions the error case ('Returns {"error":"no fort loaded"}'). It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is a bit long, but every sentence provides necessary detail, especially the elaborated recent_deaths semantics that would otherwise be unclear. No fluff or redundancy.

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 must fully document return values. It covers all major fields (name, date, population, wealth, happiness, deaths, alerts) and goes deep on the trickiest attribute (recent_deaths), including the error condition. Given the tool's complexity, this is complete and self-contained.

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 the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description wisely allocates space to explaining the rich output instead of parameters, which adds no further semantic value needed.

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 phrase ('One-call situational overview') and lists the exact resources covered (fort name, date, population, wealth, happiness, deaths, alerts). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly calling out the murder/loyalty-cascade signal as unique ('which no other tool reports').

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?

It clearly frames when to use the tool ('One-call situational overview', 'pre-triaged list of alerts') and highlights the unique murder signal, implying this is the go-to for that specific need. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for deeper dives into individual areas (e.g., threats or fort_health).

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