get_tech_path

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes output is organized by color with prerequisite chains, but does not disclose read-only nature, how expansions filtering affects results, or fallback behavior when faction_id is invalid. Thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and closing with scope detail. No waste.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more. It gives useful output-shape hints (organized by color, prerequisite chains) but omits read-only characteristic and how expansion scoping interacts with returned results, leaving gaps for a data-retrieval tool.

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 both parameters thoroughly (including the expansions enum and omission behavior). The description adds 'faction_id' meaning by saying it includes faction-specific techs, but goes beyond little else. Baseline 3 is correct 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get all available technologies for a faction') with additional scope ('organized by color and showing prerequisite chains'). Distinguishes from sibling get_tech by returning the faction-specific tech tree rather than presumably a single tech, though this sibling differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives named. The 'for a faction' phrasing implies it is the faction-scoped view vs get_tech, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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