lucille_round_strategy

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes a read-only advisory tool with no side effects, which is appropriate. However, it omits details on whether data is real-time, cached, or requires authentication, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that starts with the action 'Get strategic advice' and is immediately informative. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of purpose and content. It is mostly complete, though it could mention whether the advice is real-time or static, and any prerequisites like having a wallet connected.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter description is needed. The description adds value by listing the content areas covered (threshold, phase, etc.), which helps the agent understand what the advice includes.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get strategic advice for the current round'. It enumerates specific aspects covered (threshold, phase, personality tips, cost, how to play), distinguishing it from siblings like lucille_rules or lucille_personality.

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 implies usage during the current round for strategic guidance, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling differentiation is provided beyond the content list.

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