get_empire_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that unresolved fields are null and listed in 'unavailable', never guessed. It also discloses the runtime requirement. However, it does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only or has side effects, though 'read live' implies non-destructive.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds detail about field behavior, and the third states requirements. All sentences earn their place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (core stats, null for unavailable fields, unavailable list). It does not list all possible fields, but that's acceptable for a live-read tool. The requirement for DOSBox-X is stated.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 it returns the player empire's core stats, read live from DOSBox-X. It specifies the verb 'Return', includes the resource 'player empire's core stats', and distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_turn' by mentioning it includes turn and additional fields.

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 states the prerequisite that DOSBox-X must be running with a game in progress, but does not explicitly compare when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_turn' or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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