city_capture_options

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates the returned content (plunder, choice list, unhappiness deltas, warmonger warning), but never states that it is a read-only inspection with no side effects, nor what happens if the popup is not in the expected state.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the gating condition before the payload. The parenthetical list of choices and modifiers is information-dense but readable; nothing is wasted, though the sentence is slightly overloaded.

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, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is the only source of information and it does explain the shape of what will be returned. It is adequate for a simple read-only popup-inspection tool; only the absence of a follow-up action reference and error-state behavior keep it from a 5.

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, which is the baseline-4 case per the rubric. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve, and the schema confirms an empty argument object.

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 exactly what the tool surfaces: the plunder, the four capture choices (liberate/annex/puppet/raze), each option's unhappiness change, and the warmonger warning. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling action tool choose_city_capture by describing an inspection result rather than a decision, though it never names that sibling.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('When pending_popups shows BUTTONPOPUP_CITY_CAPTURED'), which tells the agent precisely when this tool is relevant. It stops short of naming the alternative action tool (choose_city_capture) for actually making the choice, so the when-vs-alternatives guidance is incomplete.

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