get_ship_loadout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the data source ('latest Loadout event'), which tells the agent the value is derived from journal data and may be stale. It says nothing about what happens if no Loadout event exists, whether results are cached, or permissions, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the telegraphic fragment style leaves no room for the context an unannotated tool needs.

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 values need not be described, and the source is identified. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition omits error behavior (e.g., no Loadout event found) and the meaning of journal_dir.

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 single optional parameter journal_dir is never mentioned in the description, so the agent gets no explanation of what it controls or what the null default implies. With one undocumented parameter, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('current ship + modules') and its source ('latest Loadout event'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_commander_status or get_current_location. It lacks an explicit verb and any named sibling it is not, so it falls 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The only implicit cue is 'latest Loadout event', which hints at recency but gives no guidance on conditions or exclusions.

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