get_turn

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions live reading and error raising but doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or non-destructive. It could be more transparent about side effects, but it covers essential behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds prerequisites and error handling. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 parameters, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is complete: it explains what it does, prerequisites, and error behavior. No gaps for effective use.

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, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds context by specifying the tool returns the turn number live from DOSBox-X, which goes beyond the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params 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?

Clearly states it returns the current turn number from MOO2 via DOSBox-X. The verb 'return' and resource 'current turn number' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling 'get_empire_status' which provides different data.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (DOSBox-X running MOO2 with a game in progress) and error behavior. Though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context is clear and no alternatives are needed given the sibling is different.

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