submit_expedition

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

It transparently discloses that the committed army is reserved and returns whole regardless of outcome, that the prize is a free claim or building, and that it never grants money or points. This covers key side effects and rewards without leaving major behavioral uncertainties.

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 yet comprehensive, covering the action, mechanics, reward, and prerequisite in a single well-structured sentence. Every clause serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 schema and the description, the tool provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the action: entry conditions, army commitment, prize nature, and land requirement. It does not address error cases or edge scenarios, but for a game action this level of completeness is adequate.

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 already provides descriptive text for all parameters, including committed_army ('reserved until the race resolves') and plan_claims ('same shape as assault plans'). The tool description adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 that the tool sends an expedition to race for a regional treasure, distinguishing it from other combat or territory actions. It also explains the unique prize structure, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 conditions for use (free entry, requires land in or bordering the region) and explains outcomes (prize types), giving context on when to employ this tool. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like claim_territory or attack, but the specific race mechanic and reward make its niche clear.

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