get_all_kingdoms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'View' implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. It does not go beyond the obvious.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately specifies the returned data. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple view tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the scope ('current tournament'), the resource ('all kingdoms'), and the content (names, territory counts, status). It slightly under-specifies potential pagination or formatting, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist. It adds value by specifying what information will be returned, which is sufficient.

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 action ('View'), the resource ('all kingdoms'), and the specific information returned ('names, territory counts, status'). It inherently distinguishes itself from single-kingdom tools like get_kingdom_status or view_kingdom by prefixing 'all' and specifying 'current tournament'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone.

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