propose_peace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the AI may accept or reject based on war score and relationship. However, it does not detail what happens on success (e.g., immediate peace) or failure, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, with only 3 sentences plus an Args line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be more structured formatting, but overall efficient.

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 (not shown), the description covers preconditions and the uncertain outcome. It lacks details on the exact response format or error cases, but for a simple diplomacy action it is adequate.

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 explains the parameter `other_player_id` and where to obtain it (from get_diplomacy output), adding value beyond the schema which lacks a description. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well.

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 verb 'propose' and the resource 'white peace' to a specific target (civilization at war). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like form_alliance and respond_to_diplomacy by specifying the exact diplomatic 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 explicitly states the prerequisites: being at war and past the 10-turn war cooldown. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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