diplo_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the event-name convention and the dependency on reading turn_digest to determine data1/data2, but it says nothing about side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens with an invalid event, which is a notable gap for a mutating dispatcher.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the escape-hatch purpose, then the event-name convention, then the workflow tip. Minimal waste, though the parenthetical example list is slightly long relative to the essential content.

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 4-parameter, 0%-coverage, no-output-schema dispatcher, the description is reasonably complete on intent and workflow but leaves the valid event vocabulary in an external file and never addresses player_id or return behavior, so an agent cannot fully self-serve from the definition alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `event` well (a FromUIDiploEventTypes name, optionally with the FROM_UI_DIPLO_EVENT_ prefix, list in docs/NOTES.md) and gives context that data1/data2 depend on the pending message, but it defers valid values to an external document and says nothing about player_id.

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 defines this as the catch-all 'escape hatch for any other diplomatic action not covered above' and gives concrete examples (coop-war offers, denounce responses, agreeing to work with someone), which distinguishes it from specific siblings like propose_friendship, denounce, and make_peace. The verb is inherently generic (a dispatcher), so it is not a 5, but an agent can tell it apart from the named diplomacy tools.

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 states the selection condition clearly ('any other diplomatic action not covered above') and prescribes a workflow prerequisite: read a pending leader_message in turn_digest first to learn what is being asked. It does not spell out when-not to use beyond the 'not covered above' framing or name each alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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