form_alliance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions prerequisites but fails to describe the effects of forming an alliance (e.g., duration, benefits, reversibility), possible errors, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent making the call.

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 concise with a clear structure: a one-line purpose, then an Args: section listing parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, 1 required, has output schema), the description covers prerequisites and parameter guidance but lacks information about the output, success/failure behavior, and any side effects. With no annotations, this leaves the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add value. It clearly explains both parameters: other_player_id (source from get_diplomacy) and alliance_type (enumerates valid options). This is helpful, though it omits the default value of MILITARY already in schema.

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 'Form an alliance with another civilization,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. Among sibling tools, this tool is uniquely for forming alliances, distinguishing it from diplomatic actions like propose_peace or propose_trade.

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 provides prerequisites ('declared friendship and Diplomatic Service civic') and recommends using get_trade_options to check eligibility. This gives clear guidance on when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the eligibility check.

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