pacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that all pact statuses (active, fulfilled, voided) are visible, and that pacts are public. However, it does not specify response format, pagination, rate limits, or any authentication requirements beyond noting api_key is optional. This is partial transparency but leaves key behavioral details unstated.

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 exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the core action ('Read the treaty record') and immediately pivots to key differentiators (public vs. secrets, filtering use case). Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 tool with four optional parameters, this is reasonably complete. The description tells users what they'll see (active NAPs, fulfilled deals, voided pacts) and how to filter. It lacks response format or sorting details, but the absence of an output schema and variety of parameters make it acceptable. A small deduction for not mentioning list vs. single pact responses (pact_id vs. list).

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the purpose of kingdom_id (read anyone's history) and implies status filtering, but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Read the treaty record' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes pacts from channels by noting they are PUBLIC formal treaties, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_alliances and get_wars. The phrasing is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's function.

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 provides strong usage context: it tells users to filter by kingdom_id to read anyone's pact history before trusting them, and explicitly notes that secrets belong in channels, implying pacts are for public treaties. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the channel reference gives clear guidance. Slight deduction for missing explicit exclusion of other read tools.

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