turn_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output contents (feet_remaining, stand-up cost, crawl mode, spell-slot availability) and a consistency guarantee against turn.plan, which is useful. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or boundary semantics, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, what options carry, and a consistency guarantee. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has a complex input schema (9 params, nested objects) and a short description that relies heavily on the agent knowing turn.plan's shape. It doesn't explain the 'boundary' concept or how parameters like spent and conditions should be populated, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is only 11%, with only exhaustion_level described. The description does not explain any of the 9 parameters (speed, spent, conditions, etc.) beyond a vague reference to turn.plan's state shape. This is a critical gap for a tool with nested objects and required fields, and the description fails to compensate.

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 states the tool's function: 'Enumerate what remains legal this turn' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from turn.plan by explicitly noting '(no plan)' and referencing the same state shape, making its scope and relationship to sibling tools 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 description provides context by referring to 'the same state shape as turn.plan (no plan)', implying this is the options-enumeration counterpart to turn_plan. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context and consistency-testing reference give clear guidance on appropriate use.

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