get_faction_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that content is drawn from competitive community sources, which signals the material is subjective/opinionated rather than canonical rules text. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, behavior for unknown faction IDs, or result completeness.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the core action and then itemizes the payload. Slightly long but free of filler and no wasted clauses.

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?

Though there is no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (strengths, weaknesses, tips, tech paths), so an agent knows what to expect. Minor gaps remain around unknown-faction behavior and whether the guide is static or versioned.

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% and there is only one parameter, whose format is documented in the schema with examples. The description adds nothing about the faction_id beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (strategy guide for a TI4 faction) and enumerates the content returned: strengths, weaknesses, tips, tech paths. This separates it from data-oriented siblings like get_faction and list_factions, though it never explicitly names them as alternatives.

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: an agent can infer this is for retrieving strategy guidance for a single faction. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no routing away from get_faction or list_faction_guides.

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