respond_to_diplomacy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses automatic detection and closing of goodbye-phase sessions, and explains the multi-round nature. Lacks mention of potential errors but covers key behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then argument details, then behavioral notes. No redundant sentences. Could slightly tighten phrasing but overall efficient.

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 two required params, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the multi-round workflow, automatic session closing, and return value indicator. Missing details on error handling but acceptable.

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?

Adds meaning beyond bare schema: specifies other_player_id as coming from get_pending_diplomacy, and defines response values as 'POSITIVE (friendly) or NEGATIVE (dismissive)'. Schema had 0% description coverage, so this is essential.

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?

Clearly states 'Respond to a pending diplomacy encounter' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like propose_peace and form_alliance by focusing on pending encounters.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'First meetings typically have 2-3 rounds' and 'If SESSION_CONTINUES is returned, send another response.' Also references get_pending_diplomacy for the player ID.

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