get_missions

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does describe the returned content in useful detail, which is real behavioral information. However, it never states that this is a read-only, non-mutating query, nor does it mention side effects, performance, or truncation behavior, which matters given 'cheat_complete_missions' is a sibling in the same domain.

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 tight sentence front-loads the resource and then lists returned fields in priority order, with no filler. The noun-phrase fragment style is efficient, though the parenthetical field list is dense enough that a reader may need to re-parse it.

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 effectively substitutes as a return-value contract by enumerating the mission fields and indicating scope is limited to active missions. What is missing is modest: whether inactive or completed missions are excluded, and any note that this is a safe read operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the session_id linkage to get_state. The description's "Optionally list all objective types" largely restates the schema's 'Also return the full ObjectiveType enum list' without adding format or downstream-use detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the resource (active missions) and enumerates the payload precisely: title key, chapter, time limit, and per-objective progress such as kill counts, hideout counts, and buildings visited. It is clear what an agent gets back, but it never distinguishes this from sibling 'get_mission_plan' or 'get_progression', so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; 'active missions' implies a status but the description never says to call this for live progress versus planning. The only conditional statement, 'Optionally list all objective types,' describes a parameter, not a usage decision, so an agent gets no help choosing among the mission-related siblings.

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