available_unit_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers: it states it does not select the unit or pan the camera (side-effect clarity), and discloses return-shape and quirks such as a build with 0 moves starting next turn, air previews including retaliation/interception warnings, melee fire_support_damage effects, and where `help` vs the standing sentence comes from.

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 in the first sentence and subsequent sentences each add concrete value (routing, build workflow, preview contents, promotions/help sources). It is dense and long, but largely earns its length given the absence of an output schema.

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 complex game-state query with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the missing return-value detail (nearby_builds, build_info, ranged_targets, promotions, help) and correct follow-up calls. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be absent.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it says only 'for this unit right now', implicitly making unit_id the target unit. It spends far more text on output fields than on the single input parameter, leaving the parameter's meaning minimally inferred rather than stated.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement ('Legal unit-panel actions for this unit right now') and enumerates the categories (missions, tile builds, commands, promotions). It also draws a clean boundary by naming move_unit as the separate tool for movement, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call this before unit_mission') and an alternative ('Move-to is a separate tool (move_unit)'), plus a concrete workflow for Workers/Work Boats (move_unit onto a plot, then unit_mission(MISSION_BUILD, build=...)). It lacks guidance on when not to use it versus broader siblings like units or todo_actions, but the routing is strong.

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