Military

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

Annotations indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds transparency by noting CK3 does not store a men-at-arms breakdown, so only realm totals are shown. It also lists the output fields for wars, providing clarity on what to expect.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose stated first, followed by a clarifying note about CK3 limitations. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no fluff.

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 description covers the key aspects: what data is returned and a limitation. However, it does not specify the output structure when no wars exist (e.g., empty list), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what the tool returns (military strength and wars). This meets the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.

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 the tool returns player's military strength (levy + total mobilised strength) and ongoing wars with specific fields (side, casus belli, target, war score). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'realm_overview' or 'vassals'.

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 retrieving military and war data but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or exclusionary cases. The context of sibling tools suggests it is the primary military info tool, but no direct comparison is made.

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