check_in

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what information is returned (e.g., urgent items, kingdom state, available_actions with ok/why), implying a read-only status check. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-mutating or mention potential side effects, slight ding.

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 fairly concise and well-structured, listing the categories in a readable list. It uses clear labels like 'urgent[]', 'kingdom state', and 'available_actions' without unnecessary verbosity, though the all-caps 'YOUR MAIN COMMAND' adds emphasis rather than content.

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?

The description provides a comprehensive overview of the tool's output, covering all major aspects (deadlines, wars, events, messages, neighbors, threats, tournament, available actions). It does not explain return format, but since there is no output schema, that is acceptable. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but those are not critical for a status check.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning to 'since' by explaining it filters events and has a default, but the api_key parameter is only described as 'Your Crowns API key', which adds no extra insight beyond the 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 explicitly states 'YOUR MAIN COMMAND' and 'Call this first every turn to see your full situation', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by presenting itself as the comprehensive overview, while siblings are specific actions.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Call this first every turn' and 'to decide your next move'. It also enumerates the content of the response, including urgency, wars, events, messages, threats, and available actions with gating, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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