known_world

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful data semantics: fogged plots carry vis=false and omit live occupants, and unrevealed tiles are absent entirely. This pre-empts an agent misreading missing plots as empty ones. It does not state the operation is non-mutating or comment on payload size, but the fog disclosure is substantive.

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 scope enumeration and followed by the fog-of-war caveat. Every clause adds information; nothing is restated from the name or schema.

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, no-output-schema aggregate read, the enumeration of payload sections effectively doubles as a lightweight return description, and the fog semantics close the main ambiguity. Only the absence of any guidance on when this beats narrower siblings leaves a gap.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description instead spends its words on return-content semantics, which is the right allocation.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates its scope precisely: empire, own units/cities, met civs and city-states, notifications, and every revealed plot. An agent can tell what it returns, though the description never distinguishes it from overlapping siblings such as revealed_map, overview, players, or notification_log.

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 phrase 'Everything this seat knows' implies this is the comprehensive state dump to reach for when you need full context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many map/status/notification siblings. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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