whats_happening

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies an informational, read-only briefing but doesn't explicitly state safety (e.g., read-only, no side effects). The content scope is disclosed well, but behavioral traits like whether it requires auth or caches data are absent.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a clear player context. No redundant words, every phrase adds value.

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?

For a zero-parameter briefing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key content areas. It might optionally mention format or update frequency, but the described scope is complete for the use case.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain params and adds context about the briefing content, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 provides a briefing for new or returning players, listing specific content: live server status, active incursions, recent kills, and patch notes. This distinctly positions it against siblings like recent_losses or system_intel.

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 it's good for someone logging back in after time away, giving a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly discourage use in other contexts, but the targeting is strong enough.

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