list_factions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that results are scoped to 'active expansions' (i.e., depends on game context), but does not state the base-game default, the read-only nature, or the return shape, so key behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 with zero filler, correctly sized for a one-parameter list tool. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple and its only parameter is fully documented, but with no output schema the description could reasonably state what is returned (names, ids, or full faction objects) and how it relates to get_faction. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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% with a single optional parameter, so the schema already enumerates the expansions and documents the default. The description's phrase 'active expansions' only loosely links to it, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('TI4 factions') with a scope modifier ('for the active expansions'). An agent understands the operation, but the description never differentiates it from adjacent siblings like get_faction (single faction) or list_faction_guides.

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 indication of when to use this versus get_faction or list_faction_guides, and no prerequisites. The expansion scoping is implied but the description offers no explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from tool names alone.

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