spaceship_status

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: `complete` only when every part is in the ship, `game_over` ends the game immediately, and the last part's unit is never removed by the engine. It does not explicitly state the operation is non-mutating/read-only, but for a status query the disclosure is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with substance; the second sentence is dense and run-on, but every clause carries information rather than 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, the description must describe return content, and it enumerates the key fields and semantics (part counts, tech unlock, rival progress, complete/game_over). It stops short of describing the exact response shape, but covers what an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for and no parameter ambiguity to introduce.

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?

Names the specific resource and scope: 'Science-victory progress' with per-part counts (needed, in ship, built-not-delivered, unlocking tech) plus rival Apollo completion. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling status tools like domination_progress or overview.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('the Victory Progress screen's space race'), so an agent can infer this is a read-only status check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no named alternative to route against.

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