form_alliance

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions prerequisites but doesn't disclose what happens on success or failure (e.g., whether an alliance is formed immediately or a confirmation needed). It also doesn't describe side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, using five sentences to cover purpose, parameters, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes essential information without fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers prerequisites, parameter sourcing, and eligibility check. Minor omission: it doesn't address what happens if conditions fail, but overall it is complete for tool invocation.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema, explaining each parameter: 'other_player_id: The player ID (from get_diplomacy output)' and 'alliance_type: One of: MILITARY, RESEARCH, CULTURAL, ECONOMIC, RELIGIOUS.' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Form an alliance with another civilization.' It specifies the verb and resource, and the arguments list distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_peace or propose_trade.

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 explicit prerequisites: 'Requires declared friendship and Diplomatic Service civic.' It also directs the user to check eligibility via get_trade_options. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidelines are clear and helpful.

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