get_expedition_summary

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses dependence on loaded tiles and the in-game world map, and portrays the operation as aggregation rather than tile retrieval. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, explain failure behavior when the map is not open, or clarify how “richest” is determined.

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 compact sentences front-load the returned information and then state the essential prerequisite. The resource examples add useful concreteness without unnecessary wording.

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?

For a simple two-parameter reporting tool, the description covers the major outputs and live-game prerequisite, while the schema fully documents the inputs. The main remaining gaps are sibling differentiation, ranking semantics for richest tiles, and the practical effect of analyzing only a limited tile subset.

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%, and both parameters already document their roles, defaults, bounds, and the special radius value of 0. The description adds output context but does not explain how limit and radius interact or how limiting the analyzed tiles affects the summary and richest-tile selection.

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 identifies an expedition overview and enumerates concrete outputs: loaded tile count, scavenged fraction, location distributions, resource icons, and richest tiles. It does not explicitly distinguish this aggregate summary from siblings such as get_expedition_tiles or get_resource_hotspots.

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?

“Open the world map in-game first” provides an explicit operational prerequisite, while “Expedition overview” establishes the high-level reporting use case. There is no guidance on when to prefer a sibling for raw tiles, resource hotspots, or scavenge-specific progress.

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