spies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that the returned row shape varies by context (city-state rows carry coup_chance vs coup_why_not/coup_ally; foreign-city rows carry city_potential with state/base/modifier breakdown and visibility flags). What it omits is the safety profile — nothing explicitly says this is a non-mutating read with no side effects.

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?

It is dense and front-loaded: the field list and the two context-dependent row variants come first, and the pointer to action siblings closes it. No sentence is filler, though the run-on enumeration of conditional keys makes it harder to parse than a short bulleted structure would be.

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-parameter, no-output-schema, un-annotated read tool, the description supplies the return shape that the missing output schema would otherwise have to carry, including conditional field presence and the meaning of coup_why_not values. It stops short of stating read-only/no-side-effect guarantees, which is the only notable remaining 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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The description instead spends its budget documenting the return payload, which is the right use of space here.

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 names the resource ('My spies') and enumerates the fields the rows carry (agent_id, name, rank, state, station, can_stage_coup), so an agent knows it is a read-only roster of the player's own spies. It is slightly implicit about the verb (list/read) and never states it plainly, but the content makes the purpose unambiguous. It also names the action siblings, which helps distinguish it from move_spy/stage_coup.

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 explicitly routes action intent elsewhere: 'See available_spy_cities/move_spy/stage_coup for actions,' which tells the agent this tool is for inspection, not for issuing orders. It does not state when to consult it versus espionage_intrigue or relationship, so coverage is clear but not exhaustive.

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