get_colony_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (journal files, latest depot manifest), the semantics of the result set, and the empty-state behavior (found False when no claim/beacon exists). It never explicitly states this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact enumeration of returned metrics and the fallback case. No filler sentences, though the mid-sentence line breaks make the output list slightly harder to scan than a single tight sentence would.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the empty-result case is covered. For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the journal_dir default/format is left unaddressed.

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 single optional journal_dir parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'From your journals' hints that the parameter points at the game journal directory and is defaulted, but it never says what the default is or what format/path is expected. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a colony build scoreboard derived from journals/depot manifests. It enumerates the concrete outputs (per-commodity required/provided/remaining, totals, claimed system, tonnage split, pace and ETA). It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from nearby siblings like build_cargo_shopping_list or find_colonisation_candidates, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants colony construction progress rather than commodity sourcing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as build_cargo_shopping_list for planning hauls.

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