Factions

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds value by specifying the return content (type, strength vs threshold with a special note for peasant factions, member count, leader). This goes beyond the annotation and provides useful behavioral context.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output. It starts with the main subject ('Factions currently targeting you:') and then lists the specific attributes. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

While the description lists the return fields, it could be more complete by clarifying the format (e.g., that it returns a list of faction objects). Without an output schema, the description should provide more detail on how to interpret 'strength vs. the threshold' and whether the result is a summary or detailed list.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds essential meaning by explaining what the tool returns, which is not present in the empty schema. It defines the fields and their significance (e.g., 'strength vs. the threshold that triggers their demand').

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 clearly states it lists factions targeting the user, specifying the fields included (type, strength vs threshold, member count, leader). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'diplomacy' or 'vassals', which cover different aspects of the game realm.

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?

The description implies usage for viewing active factions targeting the user, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of context for when this information is relevant or any exclusion criteria.

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