reject_great_person

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that faith is consumed and that the next Great Person becomes available. This covers the key behavioral traits for a simple reject action. A higher score would require additional details like reversibility or confirmation, which are not critical here.

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 four sentences plus an arg line, all front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear action) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, its cost, its effect, and when 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?

The single parameter 'individual_id' is fully explained: 'The individual's ID (from get_great_people output).' This adds essential context beyond the schema's type definition, compensating for zero 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 states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Pass on a Great Person (skip to the next one in that class).' The verb 'reject' matches this, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'recruit_great_person' and 'patronize_great_person' by indicating it skips rather than acquires or funds.

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 usage guidance: 'Use when you don't want the current GP and want to save points for a better one.' It also mentions that it costs faith and advances to the next GP. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, though context with sibling tools implies the alternatives.

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