turn_options

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool enumerates options and references consistency testing, implying a read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions.

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 two sentences long, clear and front-loaded, but the second sentence is denser. No wasted words.

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 good purpose clarity, the description omits parameter explanations and full output structure for a moderately complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, leaving significant gaps.

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 description adds no meaning to the three parameters (speed, spent, conditions) beyond the schema. All parameters remain unexplained, which is critical given 0% schema description coverage.

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 enumerates legal turn options, listing specific outputs (feet_remaining, stand-up cost, etc.) and distinguishes itself from turn_plan by referencing 'same state shape as turn.plan (no plan)'.

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 mentions consistency testing with turn.plan and validation boundaries, giving some context for when to use it, but lacks explicit when-not or alternatives among sibling tools like ttt_options.

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