players

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden, and it delivers: it discloses the returned fields (connected, active turn, ended turn), the visibility caveat (unmet seats show a name but no civ), and the solo-game degeneracy. It doesn't cover permissions, but for a parameterless read query the practical behavior is well conveyed.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the scope constraint before the behavioral caveats and the routing hint. Every sentence carries distinct information; 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of return-value information, and it does describe the shape of the output and its visibility caveats. Minor gaps remain -- no output format or id details -- but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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. Nothing about parameters needs explaining, and the description does not waste words inventing any.

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 scope: human seats with connection, active-turn, and turn-ended status. It explicitly contrasts itself with the `diplomacy` sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'For the AI civs and city-states I have met ... use `diplomacy`'. It also clarifies the inverse condition -- this tool is human seats only, and in solo play it is just the caller -- leaving nothing to inference.

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