assignments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers well: it discloses the read-only nature ('Nothing is closed, re-targeted or ordered for me'), the state machine (condition_met / needs_review / on_track), the meaning of needs_review reasons, and the fog rule that unseen plots/units are marked stale/unknown rather than assumed gone. It stops short of stating permissions or any side effects beyond the read-only claim.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of run-on sentences with nested parentheticals and backtick-quoted tokens that are hard to parse. Much of the length is legitimately needed to convey the return shape given no output schema, but structure and scannability suffer.

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, the description must explain the return shape and it does thoroughly – row fields, state values, reasons list, units/cities/target semantics. Little an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, though the parameter explanation and its placement at the end is less prominent than the return detail.

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 single 'status' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: status is documented as 'active' (default), 'closed' (completed, cancelled, replaced), or 'all'. This fully enumerates the accepted values and their meanings, filling the gap the schema leaves.

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 it returns 'My assignments (see assign), each reconciled against what I can see now, in one game read' – a specific resource with scope. It implies it is a read/list operation and differentiates itself from assign/amend_assignment/close_assignment by noting nothing is closed, re-targeted or ordered. The verb itself is implicit rather than stated, and the dense return-shape prose buries it somewhat.

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?

It references 'see assign' and mentions that briefing() carries the active ones compactly, needing-a-look first, which hints at an alternative for a terse view. But it never explicitly says when to reach for this tool versus briefing(), or what the caller must do first. Usage is only implied.

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