set_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the arguments but does not mention that setting research overrides the current research, or any safety implications. The mutation aspect is not highlighted.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then argument details, with a helpful tip at the end. It is efficient and easy to scan.

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 output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description is fairly complete. It mentions a prerequisite (get_tech_civics) and explains the parameters. However, it lacks details on side effects or constraints (e.g., whether the tool can be called multiple times).

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds value by providing examples (e.g., TECH_POTTERY) and clarifying that category defaults to 'tech'. It explains the meaning of both parameters beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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: to choose a technology or civic to research. The examples (TECH_POTTERY, CIVIC_CRAFTSMANSHIP) clarify the input format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools beyond the tip.

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 tip 'call get_tech_civics first' provides clear guidance on when to use this tool. It implies that the tool should be used after obtaining available options, but it does not state when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives.

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