found_pantheon

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 discloses the gating condition via turn_status, which is useful operational context beyond the schema, but it does not describe the effects of founding a pantheon, whether the action is irreversible, or any costs, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the necessary validity check. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call requirements: what it does, an example argument, and the turn-status precondition. It could go further by explaining the source of valid beliefs or the consequences of the action, but it is largely sufficient for an agent that can consult sibling tools like available_beliefs and turn_status.

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 has one parameter ('belief') with 0% description coverage. The description supplies an example value ('BELIEF_GOD_OF_THE_SEA'), which helps clarify the expected format, but it does not explain where valid beliefs come from (e.g., available_beliefs) or list valid options, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Found a pantheon with the given belief'), and gives an example belief constant. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like found_religion or enhance_religion, but the resource 'pantheon' is distinct enough for an agent to infer the difference.

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 provides a clear precondition: 'Check turn_status first: only valid when blocking_name is ENDTURN_BLOCKING_FOUND_PANTHEON.' This tells the agent exactly when the tool is valid, though it names no alternative tool for when the condition is not met.

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