get_faction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'Get' verb implies a non-mutating lookup, which is reasonable, but the description says nothing about behavior when faction_id is unknown or how the expansions parameter changes the returned data. Adequate for a simple read, but far from rich.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and a compact enumeration of return contents. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields, which is the main thing the agent needs. It falls short only on how expansion context shapes results and on failure behavior for an invalid faction_id.

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 100%, so both faction_id and expansions are already fully documented in the schema, including the full enum list. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema supplies, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (Get) and resource (TI4 faction) and enumerates the payload the caller receives (abilities, starting tech, units, leaders, promissory note). It does not differentiate itself from the nearby list_factions or get_faction_guide siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The presence of list_factions and get_faction_guide as siblings makes the omission notable, because nothing tells the agent to call this one only when it already has a faction_id.

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