respond_to_trade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (accept/reject) without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, or output behavior. For a mutation tool, this lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: a one-line action statement, parameter explanations, and a prerequisite hint. No fluff; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details about return values and failure conditions (e.g., what if trade is no longer pending), making it slightly incomplete.

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, but the tool description clearly explains both parameters: 'other_player_id' (source from get_pending_trades) and 'accept' (boolean meaning). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Accept or reject' and the resource 'pending trade deal', which clearly defines the tool's purpose. The name 'respond_to_trade' differentiates it from siblings like 'respond_to_diplomacy' and '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 advises to 'Use get_pending_trades first to see what's being offered', providing clear context on prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with similar tools (e.g., respond_to_diplomacy).

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