get_fleet_overview

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: data is derived from journals, cargo is computed rather than stored, and results are ordered newest-first. It does not disclose that the operation is read-only, what happens when no journals exist or when a ship has no cargo record, or how much of the journal directory is scanned. Those omissions matter for a tool that parses local files.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the primary resource and with the computed/ordering qualifiers appended. Nothing is padded, though the '+' construction and 'latest first' are terse enough to be mildly ambiguous about what is ordered — the ship list or the cargo entries.

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 return-shape explanation is fairly excused, and the tool is structurally simple with one optional parameter. Still, for a journal-scanning aggregate the description omits the practicalities an agent needs: journal_dir semantics, behaviour with missing or partial journals, and read-only status.

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 0% and the sole parameter journal_dir has no description, so the description must compensate — but 'your journals' only loosely hints at the data source. It never explains that journal_dir is optional, what the default (null) resolves to, or what format the path takes. The one parameter an agent could get wrong is left undocumented.

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 resource and scope: every ship found in the commander's journals, plus a computed cargo figure per ship. The added qualifiers '(latest first)' and 'computed' tell an agent this is an aggregate synthesized overview rather than a raw lookup. It never names the near-neighbour tools (get_ship_loadout, find_stored_ship, get_cargo_hold), so differentiation is left to inference.

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: 'every ship in your journals' suggests a bulk overview as opposed to a single-ship lookup, which an agent can map onto the sibling tools by contrast. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of the fleet/ship-loadout alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as having journals present.

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