diplomacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the topic scope (relations, pacts/hostility, war) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, how it handles missing or invalid countries, or what the output represents. The ambiguous phrasing leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 extremely short and has no filler, which is superficially concise. However, it is an under-specified fragment that omits essential guidance about behavior and parameters, so the brevity is not achieved through good structure.

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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema, a minimal call is technically possible using defaults, but the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection. It lacks usage context, alternative differentiation, and parameter semantics, forcing the agent to guess whether this returns a diplomatic summary or performs an action.

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 0%, so the description is responsible for explaining the country parameter. It never mentions country, its default value, or how the parameter selects the diplomatic view. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 identifies the resource (diplomacy) and lists content areas (relations, agreements/hostility, war), which gives some domain scope. However, it lacks a verb and never states what the tool actually does—show, summarize, or modify—so it remains a fragment rather than a clear purpose. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like overview or analyze_situation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as country, overview, or analyze_situation. The only implied usage is 'diplomatic matters,' but no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.

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