get_wonder_advisor

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

The description discloses beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the output includes ranked tiles, displacement cost, terrain, and resources to be removed. It accurately reflects the read-only nature and provides meaningful behavioral detail.

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 well-structured with a summary, Args section, Returns section, and a usage tip. It's somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, and the structure aids 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, detailed output) and the existence of an output schema, the description is very complete. It explains inputs, output contents, and usage context, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and how to use 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?

Despite 0% schema parameter descriptions, the tool's description adds significant meaning: it specifies that city_id comes from get_cities output, and gives example values for wonder_name (e.g., BUILDING_CHICHEN_ITZA). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Show best tiles to place a wonder with displacement cost analysis.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_settle_advisor and get_district_advisor by focusing specifically on wonder placement.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when placing a wonder) and even advises the next step: 'Use set_city_production with target_x/target_y to build the wonder.' While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, the context is sufficient.

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