recruit_great_person

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the consumption of GP points and that the GP spawns in the capital. It does not mention destructive aspects, but recruitment is non-destructive. It offers a check for availability, adding transparency.

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?

Very concise with a clear structure: main action, args, notes. Every sentence adds value—prerequisite, location, and how to check availability. No fluff.

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 a single parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and data source. It is complete for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description must compensate. It explains that 'individual_id' comes from 'get_great_people output, shown after ability', providing crucial context beyond the raw 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 the verb 'Recruit' and the resource 'Great Person' using 'accumulated GP points', which distinguishes it from siblings like 'patronize_great_person' (which uses gold/faith) and 'reject_great_person'.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires enough GP points') and provides a precondition check ('Use get_great_people to check [CAN RECRUIT] status'). Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with patronize, but the GP points requirement implies the condition.

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