espionage_intrigue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure, and it does tell the agent what the payload contains (turn, spy, discoverer, player-visible message). It does not, however, state that the tool is a side-effect-free read, so the safety profile remains unconfirmed.

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 compact clause with no filler; the resource is front-loaded and the field list follows. It is efficient, though the missing verb slightly weakens the lead.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema tool the description should explain what the agent gets back, and it does name the four fields. It stops short of describing ordering, scope, or how to act on the intrigue, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema declares zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource — the Espionage Overview intrigue log — and lists the fields it surfaces (turn, spy, discoverer, message). However it is phrased as a noun with no verb, so it never explicitly states that it retrieves/lists the log, leaving the action implied.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as spies, available_spy_cities, stage_coup, or notification_log. The agent must infer that this is an espionage-intrigue view purely from the name.

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