get_victory_progress

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read-only operation. The description goes beyond by detailing the specific data included (e.g., space race VP, diplomatic VP), adding behavioral context without contradiction.

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: first states the purpose, second lists included data and usage frequency. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action, well-structured.

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 no parameters and an output schema presumably detailing structure, the description provides a complete overview of what the tool returns and when to call it. The periodic usage advice enhances completeness.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema is empty. The description fully compensates by explaining the rich output details (victory types, components), adding essential meaning beyond the 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 'Get victory condition progress for all civilizations' and enumerates specific victory types. It is distinct from sibling tools, which are either action-oriented or pertain to other game state queries.

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 advises calling 'every 20-30 turns to track the race', providing explicit temporal guidance. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, but the context is clear for a monitoring tool.

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