analyze_slices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it enumerates the outputs (resource/influence totals, tech skips, wormholes, anomalies, legendary planets, Mecatol path, ranking) and clarifies this is an analysis operation. It lacks execution details like cost or input validation behavior, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then input structure, then outputs. Every sentence adds information 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates return fields, and the single parameter's nested structure is fully explained via the index legend. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by mapping each array index to a board position (0=home-left through 4=mecatol-gate), which the schema does not document.

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 verb and resource ('Analyze and compare Milty Draft slices') with a precise scope. It is functionally distinct from all siblings (factions, tech, planets, etc.), though it never names or contrasts an alternative, so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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 by the functional description; there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent can infer you call it to evaluate draft slices, but nothing is stated directly.

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