Return options after a completed archaeological dig: artifact origins and eras, open art or writing slots, and artifact vs landmark or writing vs culture choices.
Completed dig: artifact origins/era, available art/writing slots, artifact vs landmark or writing vs culture choices. Unmet artifact origins are masked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully notes that unmet artifact origins are masked, but says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or what the response shape looks like.
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 short and front-loads the key context ('Completed dig:') without filler. Its telegraphic fragments and slash-heavy lists reduce readability slightly, but every phrase contributes content.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must fully orient the agent. It lists option content and masking behavior, but omits what the tool actually returns and when it should be called versus choose_archaeology, leaving significant gaps for a 0-parameter options tool.
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, so the rubric assigns a baseline of 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-level detail because there are no parameters to describe.
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 identifies the context as a completed dig and lists the kinds of options involved (artifact origins/era, art/writing slots, artifact/landmark or writing/culture choices). However, it lacks a clear verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the companion choose_archaeology sibling, so an agent must infer its role as an options-listing tool.
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?
Only the phrase 'Completed dig' hints at a precondition for use. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to the related choose_archaeology tool, leaving routing decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.