culture_works

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does imply read-only status by naming the separate write tools, which is genuinely useful disambiguation. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, cost, or freshness of the data.

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?

It is front-loaded with the primary tab contents, but the run-on second half piles invented jargon (`ours`, `theirs`, 'pull-down's candidates') into a dense block that is hard to parse. Every sentence carries information, yet the structure is cramped.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does enumerate the fields well. It is thin on how the `swap` view is actually reached given the tool exposes zero parameters, leaving a real ambiguity for an agent trying to trigger that variant.

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, so there are no argument semantics to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words on returned data shape, which is appropriate but not required here.

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 names a specific resource (the Culture Overview works tab) and enumerates its contents: Great Work slots, work tooltips, theming rules/bonuses, and tourism breakdowns. It also distinguishes the `swap` variant and its `ours`/`theirs` keys. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling culture_overview, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The closing line routes writes to set_swappable_great_work and swap_great_works, which usefully signals this tool itself is read-only. But there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' guidance and no comparison against culture_overview or great_person_progress for deciding which overview to open.

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