get_intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a null army_intel means fog, not an armyless kingdom, which is a critical behavioral nuance. It also explains that radius grows with tower tier and that alliance vision is shared. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output format, but the description covers the key behavioral traits well.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and prerequisite. It packs a lot of information into a few sentences without redundancy. Slightly long but every sentence adds value.

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 read-only intel tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisites, what data is returned, and the fog interpretation. It could mention whether the tool is read-only, but the read-only nature is implied by 'view'. Overall, quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (api_key), which is self-explanatory. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with only one standard parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: viewing enemy movements near watchtowers. It specifies the resource (watchtowers), the data shown (enemy territories, recent battles, diplomacy, army_intel), and the core product (foreign strength). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_kingdom_status and get_active_battles by focusing on watchtower-based intel.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: at least one WORKING watchtower, and clarifies what counts as working (not a ruin at tier 0, not cut from supply). It also explains the alliance vision sharing mechanic, which is a key usage condition. This is strong guidance for when to use the tool.

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