get_progression

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only in nature and works without a game bridge, which is valuable, but it does not address return format, error behavior, or whether reads are scoped to the currently loaded save.

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 definition is two tightly written sentences. It front-loads the resource being read and follows with the offline capability note, with no wasted 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 three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to understand what data is returned conceptually. It could be stronger only by clarifying expected return structure or how the progression data is organized.

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%, so the filter, category, and include_unlocked parameters are already well documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb, "Read," and names the exact resource, the save's ContentStateController, then enumerates the progression areas covered: buildings, productions, enemy spawn types and tech. That makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_state or get_save_info.

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 statement that it "Works offline (no game bridge needed)" gives useful context about when the tool is usable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related save or state tools, leaving usage only implied.

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