steal_tech

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one side effect – clearing the ENDTURN_BLOCKING_STEAL_TECH blocker – which is genuine behavioral context. But it omits whether the tech is removed from the victim, diplomatic/reputation consequences, or failure conditions.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the parenthetical placed where it aids the reader. No filler, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts the core instruction.

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 simple two-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both parameters' semantics and one key state effect. Only deeper behavioral detail (failure modes, consequences) 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema labels are bare ('Tech', 'Player Id'). The description compensates by identifying player_id as the victim and giving the expected tech identifier format (TECH_...), adding real meaning beyond the schema. It does not document valid ranges or the source of valid tech values beyond pointing at the options tool.

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 verb+resource ('Take a stolen tech from player_id') and disambiguates from the sibling steal_tech_options by explaining that tool lists victims/techs. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema, though the phrasing 'take a stolen tech' is slightly awkward.

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 parenthetical points at steal_tech_options as the prerequisite step, implying a workflow (list options, then steal). However, it never states explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites (e.g., needing a spy in place), or when this action is unavailable, leaving usage largely inferred.

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