get_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the output but does not mention potential side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or error conditions. The hint about building watchtowers might imply prerequisites, but this is not clarified.

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 concise—two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and provides necessary detail without 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output, and hints at a related tool. It lacks explicit note on side effects or edge cases, but these are not critical for a simple read operation.

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 only parameter (api_key) is fully described in the schema ('Your Crowns API key'). The description does not add extra context beyond the schema, so a 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: 'See which kingdoms border yours.' It specifies the output details (neighbor names, color, and number of bordering hexes) and differentiates from a more detailed alternative (get_intelligence).

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?

It provides a clear pointer for when to use a different tool ('For detailed enemy intel... use get_intelligence'), implying this tool is for basic neighbor info. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide other selection criteria.

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