diplomacy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the return content (war status, major scores, city-state ally/friend status) plus the omission rule for unmet players. However it says nothing about read-only nature (implied), ordering, or freshness, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping rule is stated last. It is slightly telegraphic ('score (majors)'), which costs it the top mark.

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 parameterless info tool with no output schema, the description sketches the returned categories but does not explain the format, what 'score' represents for majors, or how the foundation of unmet players interacts with the rest. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 parameter semantics for the description to cover; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 the resource (civs and city-states I have met) and the states being reported (at war, score, ally/friends), so an agent can tell this is a diplomatic-status overview rather than a deal or event tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' and doesn't name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus siblings such as relationship, current_deals, players, or diplo_event. 'Unmet players are omitted' is a scope note about the result, not guidance about when to invoke the tool.

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