cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains growth statuses, when growth_turns appears, when expense/income rows are omitted, and what blockaded/wltkd_turns represent. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or absence of side effects, but the informational nature is clear from the content.

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 front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then adds concise field-semantics notes and a single sibling handoff. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding the output or when to use the alternative.

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 and no annotations, the description supplies the missing return-value context: it names the key city attributes, explains conditional fields, and points to city_screen for detail. That is complete enough for an agent to call this zero-parameter overview tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4 even when the description adds no parameter information.

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 states the resource and scope explicitly: 'My cities' with population, yields, production, growth, happiness, and other city-summary fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling city_screen by directing detailed per-city inspection there, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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 clearly routes detailed city inspection to city_screen(city_id) and implies this tool is for a broad overview. The when-to-use condition is easy to infer, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion statement beyond the sibling handoff.

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