set_research

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explains what the tool does and provides example values, but does not mention expected output, side effects, or game-state requirements. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged for 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: one sentence for purpose, two lines for arguments, and a tip. No extraneous text. Purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Simple tool with two parameters. The description covers usage and parameter semantics adequately. Could mention the output or confirm if it modifies game state, but given the output schema exists, it is mostly complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters, including example values (TECH_POTTERY) and default value for category, adding meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 'Choose' and the resource 'a technology or civic to research', distinguishing it from sibling tools that are primarily getters (e.g., get_tech_civics) or other setters (set_city_focus, etc.).

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?

Includes a tip to call get_tech_civics first, guiding the agent to necessary prior step. Does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but the purpose and context make usage clear.

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