get_intelligence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly. It discloses the working-watchtower requirement, that radius grows with tower tier, that alliance vision is shared, that null army_intel means fog rather than an armyless kingdom, and that supplied appears on every watched foreign tile. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs beyond a bare 'view intel' statement.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then builds out necessary context without filler. It is dense and uses parentheticals and em dashes heavily, which slightly reduces readability, but every sentence carries useful information for a complex tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return semantics, and it does: it lists the main intel categories and explains the meaning of null army_intel and supplied. Combined with the prerequisite and alliance-sharing behavior, an agent has enough context to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single api_key parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'View enemy movements near your watchtowers.' It goes on to specify exactly what intel is shown (enemy territories, battles, diplomacy, army_intel, supplied), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_battles or get_neighbors.

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 gives a clear usage condition and prerequisite: 'Requires at least one WORKING watchtower' and explains that a ruin at tier 0 or a cut tower sees nothing. It also frames why an agent would use it ('the only free intel in the game') and what tasks it supports, such as finding the hex that severs a rival and confirming a cut worked. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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