get_strategy_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the type of content returned but omits critical behavioral details such as whether it requires an active game context, whether it is read-only, whether it may fail for unknown factions, or whether output depends on expansions. These gaps are significant for a data retrieval tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the return content. It is efficient and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters (both documented) and no output schema, so the description must explain returns. It does list the main content types, which is adequate. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details, leaving the agent with some uncertainty about prerequisites and alternatives.

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 the schema already documents the 'faction_id' and 'expansions' parameters thoroughly. The description adds no further parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get structured data to help reason about faction strategy') and enumerates the data returned (starting position, key techs, home system economy, objectives). It is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_faction_guide or get_faction, which may cause some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_faction_guide or get_faction. The description implies it's for strategy reasoning but doesn't specify when it should be chosen over other faction-related tools.

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