get_mission_plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that results are derived 'from live data' and names the categories of actions returned, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens when no objectives are active, or how the output is shaped.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the enumerated use cases, and no filler. The mid-sentence list is long but each item describes a distinct actionable output, so it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey what comes back, and the enumeration of kill/scavenge/marker/heal/worksite/sunset items does that at a thematic level. It could go further on result structure or empty-state behavior, but an agent can decide to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a global sweep across all active objectives rather than a targeted query.

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-and-resource pair ('produce concrete next actions' for 'every active mission objective') and enumerates the concrete outputs, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It also explicitly separates itself from get_missions, which only lists objective types.

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 line 'Complements get_missions (which lists objective types)' effectively tells the agent when to pick this tool over its closest sibling. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. whether a mission must be active first), so it is clear but not complete routing guidance.

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