turn_plan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return types (legal/illegal/cannot-adjudicate), mentions citations, and explains error handling. Could be more detailed on internal decision logic but sufficient for agent invocation.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear scope and limitations, but a bit verbose. Could be shortened slightly without losing key information.

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?

Comprehensive for a complex tool: covers purpose, scope, return types, error cases, and limits. No output schema but return format is described. Adequately addresses all context signals (4 params, nested objects).

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds context about turn economy but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description uses specific verb ('Judge') and resource ('proposed turn under SRD 5.2.1 ACTION ECONOMY'), clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like attack_modifiers or turn_options by stating scope (economy only, not feature grants).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (checking turn economy) and when not (does not verify feature grants), and describes error conditions (exit 2 for unmodeled conditions or out-of-range inputs).

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