sitrep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (login state, character overview, training, recent loss) and that it does so 'in one call,' implying an efficient aggregation. However, it does not state potential side effects or prerequisites beyond the situation, which is acceptable for a report tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then providing a concise list of included data. It wastes no words and clearly earns its place by covering both function and usage.

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 the zero-parameter, no-output-schema context, the description is nearly complete. It tells the user exactly what information will be provided and when to use it. A minor gap is not explicitly describing the format or order of the report, but the description is sufficient for orientation purposes.

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 coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to explain, but it clarifies the output content that the parameterless call will return.

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 purpose as a 'Session-start situation report' that aggregates login state, character overview, training, and recent loss. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like character_sheet, skill_queue, and recent_losses, which provide individual pieces of this information.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this at the start of a mentoring session to orient.' The context is clear, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, though the one-call aggregation implies a primary use case.

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