excavate_artifact

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait ('consumes a charge') and indicates the result (artifacts fill museum slots). However, since no annotations are provided, it lacks detail on failure modes, prerequisites beyond the civic, or side effects, which limits transparency.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value: the first defines the core action and cost, the second provides game context. There is no unnecessary 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?

Despite the existence of an output schema (which lessens the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain the required parameters (unit_id, target_x, target_y) or how to use them. Given the moderate complexity (3 required params, no enum), the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without prior knowledge.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters or provide hints about what values to assign (e.g., unit_id must be an archaeologist, target coordinates). It adds no value beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 clearly states the action ('dig an antiquity site'), the resource (artifact), and key context (consumes a charge, requires Natural History civic, fills museum slots). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a unique game action.

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 description provides a clear prerequisite ('Sites appear after the Natural History civic'), guiding when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context implies there is no similar tool among siblings.

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