available_beliefs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful non-obvious behavior ('kind=founder also lists the religions nobody has founded') and points to reference('beliefs') for semantics, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or return format for a query tool.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the allowed kind values in the first two segments, then adds workflow context. The semicolon-heavy, terse style is efficient but borders on cryptic, particularly the reference() call embedded mid-sentence.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the enum values, the meaning of each, and the workflow context needed to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps remain (no explicit next-step routing, no return-format note).

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 0% and the schema declares no enum for kind, so the description's explicit enumeration ('pantheon | founder | follower | enhancer | bonus | reformation') is essential and fully compensates. It further explains what each kind selection implies, adding real meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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 resource and scope: 'Beliefs still available for one slot', which distinguishes it from found_pantheon/found_religion/enhance_religion siblings that consume beliefs. It also clarifies the return shape ('enum + name'). Not quite a 5 because the phrasing is dense and the slot notion depends on the reader inferring the game mechanic.

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 implies when each kind matters by describing the founding workflow ('Founding a religion takes pantheon/founder/follower...; enhancing takes follower + enhancer'), which helps the agent pick the right kind. However, it never explicitly says to call this before found_religion/enhance_religion, nor names those siblings as the next step.

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