war_consequences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well by listing what it reports: broken Declarations of Friendship, denouncements, allied city-states joining the war, major powers protecting a city-state, and cancelled trade routes. It implies a read-only informational tool but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or permissions requirements.

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-loads the key instruction ('Read before declare_war') and then provides a focused list of consequences. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description explains the informational return content well enough that an output schema is not required. However, it omits any explanation of the required player_id input, and without annotations it does not explicitly confirm the tool is read-only, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 only parameter, player_id, has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The description references a 'target' of a war but never explains whose perspective player_id represents or how it affects the output, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: it reads and reports the consequences the game's confirmation screen shows before declaring war. It explicitly names the sibling tools it supports (declare_war, city_state_action declare_war) and enumerates the exact warning categories, so an agent can distinguish it from declare_war itself.

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?

Gives explicit timing and context: 'Read before declare_war (or city_state_action declare_war)'. It names the relevant alternative actions and makes clear this is a preparatory read step rather than the war declaration itself.

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