campaign_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states it changes nothing, and it enumerates the return contents (active scene, party hit points and Doom dice, live NPCs, clocks, combat state, every valid identifier). This fully discloses the tool's read-only nature and what the agent can expect.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by a clear list of return contents and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete. It states the exact scope of information returned, confirms non-mutation, and gives specific call timing. No output schema exists, but the description itself lists the key data fields, so the agent knows what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. It does clarify what the return provides, which is relevant but not parameter semantics.

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 the tool reads the authoritative campaign state, with a specific verb (read) and resource (campaign state). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by focusing on the overarching status and explicitly noting it changes nothing, which separates it from all mutation and action tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: call at the start of a consequential turn and after any tool error. It also states it changes nothing, implicitly telling the agent it is safe to call frequently. No alternatives are needed since it is the unique status-reading tool among siblings.

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