tech_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses scope exclusions ('No rival column'), seat-dependence ('the buttons on that tech for this seat'), and what each section represents (prereqs, missing steps, turns-if-researchable, unlocks). It does not explicitly state read-only/non-mutating status, but the content 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?

Three sentences front-loaded with the resource name, and most clauses carry information. But the heavy nested backticks, em-dashes and parentheticals ('the buttons on that tech for this seat') make it dense and slightly convoluted, and the rival-column sentence is a tangent that costs readability.

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 must describe the payload itself, and it does so reasonably well: it names the sections, the kinds of statuses, and the unlock hints. It stops short of fully specifying the payload structure (e.g., the meaning of 'current' vs 'available' at a finer grain), but nothing essential for calling it 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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description instead spends its budget documenting the return payload's shape, which is the relevant semantic information for a no-arg call.

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 name and opening clause ('The tech tree:') identify the resource unambiguously, and the field breakdown (`have`, `techs`, `unlocks`) tells an agent what the payload covers. It also distinguishes itself from `available_research` (leaf list only) and `steal_tech_options` (rival techs), so the agent can tell which stock screen it is. No explicit verb ('view/get'), but the read-only zero-arg shape makes that obvious.

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 implies routing via two negative statements — no rival column, and 'available_research is the leaf list only' — which tell the agent where NOT to look for certain data. However, there is no explicit 'use this when you need X' and no stated prerequisites for the tool itself; usage is inferred rather than directed.

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