DZPage DayZ Tools

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: it groups repeated lines, flags messages that also occur on unmodified vanilla servers, and suggests fixes, telling the agent what the analysis actually does beyond a raw dump.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the verb and resource before enumerating capabilities. It is dense but every clause earns its place by naming a distinct diagnostic; only the final list of failure classes borders on run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so well (per-problem plain-word explanations, grouping, vanilla marking, fix suggestions). The only minor gap is not stating anything about length limits or run cost, which the schema partially covers via the 500k maxLength note.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents log truncation guidance, the lang enum, and the file_name example. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how lang affects output beyond the schema note), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (analyze) and resource (DayZ server log) and enumerates the concrete failure classes it explains (crashes, script errors, broken economy, missing classes, FPS). This clearly separates it from siblings like validate_config_file or get_item, which deal with configs and catalog lookups rather than log diagnosis.

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?

It gives clear trigger context by naming the exact file types that qualify (.RPT, script_*.log, crash_*.log) and the symptoms worth diagnosing. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is not required to restate it. It does add genuine behavioral context by disclosing provenance: values are computed from the game's ammo config and speed falloff, consistent with the dzpage.com comparison page, which tells the agent how much to trust the numbers.

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?

Two sentences, roughly 55 words, with the purpose and metric list front-loaded and the provenance note second. No filler, no restatement of the name, and every clause maps to a parameter or an output metric.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the compared metrics. It also bounds inputs (up to 6 weapons, given distances) and names the vest-dependent column. Only minor gaps remain, such as output ordering or fallback when a weapon/ammo class is invalid.

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 coverage is 75% (distances_m has no description at all). The description compensates meaningfully: 'up to 6 firearms' reinforces the weapons bound, 'at given distances' ties distances_m to the damage-falloff computation, and 'with and without a vest' explains what the vest parameter controls. It still does not clarify the ':<ammo class>' syntax or the lang enum, which the schema handles.

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 a specific verb (compare) and resource (DayZ firearms) and enumerates the exact metrics produced: damage per shot, hits-to-kill with/without vest, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, dispersion, magazine size. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_items, get_item, or get_infected without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the comparison framing and the 'up to 6' bound, so an agent can infer this is for head-to-head stat comparisons. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_items/get_item for single-weapon lookups.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond structured fields: it discloses that results derive from real sunrise/sunset data, and that omitting date leaves the server on serverTime="SystemTime".

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the core transformation and then the return payload. No filler or restated title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the three return components (values, real durations, ready cfg block). Given the 5-param, enum-heavy schema, this is nearly complete; only per-parameter output detail and any edge cases (e.g. what happens if day+night exceed a cycle) are unaddressed.

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 80%, so map, date, lang, day_minutes and night_minutes are largely documented in the schema itself. The description adds the conceptual link between the minute inputs and the acceleration outputs, but no format or unit detail beyond what the schema already gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific transformation (wanted day/night real-time length → serverTimeAcceleration and serverNightTimeAcceleration for serverDZ.cfg) and states what it returns. No sibling tool overlaps this computation, so the agent can distinguish it cleanly.

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?

Explains the context in which the conversion applies (real sunrise/sunset of the map on the in-game date) and the schema notes what happens when date is omitted. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but for a single-purpose calculator there is little sibling ambiguity to resolve.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world. The description adds meaningful scope context beyond that: the data is vanilla-only and sourced from Bohemia's public repository, which tells the agent the results exclude mods and where authority comes from. It does not discuss staleness or refresh cadence.

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?

Four tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the three invocation modes packed into the tail. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of outlining return shapes per mode (list of updates, added/removed/changed entries, per-class history), which is exactly what an agent needs. It omits how the map parameter narrows results, a small gap given 4 optional parameters.

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 coverage is 75% and both enums (map, lang) are self-describing via enum lists. The description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the version parameter accepts either an update id or a bare version like '1.29' resolving to its first release, and that 'item' with no version switches to a history mode. The 'map' parameter's effect on results is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('what each DayZ update changed in the vanilla Central Economy files') and enumerates the exact files affected, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like explain_server_setting or validate_config_file without opening a schema.

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 gives explicit invocation modes keyed to parameters: no version returns the update list, version returns added/removed/changed entries, and item without version returns one class's history. That is strong when-to-use routing, though it never names an alternative sibling tool or states when not to use this one.

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

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent profile. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the fallback that an unknown name returns the closest matching setting names, plus a detailed account of what is returned (vanilla value, engine default, type, unit, range, ready file line, editor link).

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?

It is one dense sentence but front-loads the core action ('Explain one setting...') before enumerating return content, so the key intent is immediately clear. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, covering both source files, per-map variance, engine defaults, and the unknown-name edge case. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds examples of valid setting names and notes that cfggameplay.json values are per-map, reinforcing the map parameter, but adds no syntax beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Explain) and resource (one DayZ server setting), scoping it to db/globals.xml and cfggameplay.json with concrete examples. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like validate_config_file and analyze_server_log.

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 gives clear context for use — looking up a single named setting and its metadata — with example names. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or point to an alternative such as validate_config_file, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one thing annotations cannot: the return shape ('tool names, what they do and links'), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits auth/rate-limit context, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then examples, then the empty-input behavior, then the sibling handoff — each sentence carries distinct information. The examples are the highest-value content and are placed early rather than padded at the end.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: valid input style, empty-input semantics, return contents, and the alternative tool for a nearby-but-different intent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by showing the expected phrasing of `task` ('more loot on my server', 'shorter nights'), which tells an agent what granularity of natural-language query actually retrieves results.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the dzpage.com browser tool') and anchors it with four concrete example tasks that make the input domain unambiguous. It also names the sibling where_to_find_item as the tool for a different question, which is exactly the differentiation an agent needs.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('a task described in plain words'), explicit degenerate case ('With an empty task it lists all tools'), and explicit routing away ('To answer where a specific item spawns, call where_to_find_item instead'). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower and the description still adds real value: it discloses data provenance (drop chances computed from cfgspawnabletypes.xml and cfgrandompresets.xml), that drop probabilities are map-dependent, and that ambiguous queries return a list rather than a single record.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource being described and the payload it returns, then the query mechanics, then the multi-match note. It is dense and every clause adds information, though the opening sentence is long enough that a reader has to parse several comma-separated field groups.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned data so an agent knows what to expect, and covers the ambiguous-match case. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and the lang enum's exact effect, but nothing critical to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description has to carry meaning, and it does: it explains that query accepts display names in any language or class names with a concrete example, and that map governs the drop-chance computation. The lang parameter is only partially covered (the description alludes to 'any language' but does not explain the lang enum's effect).

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Stats of a DayZ infected type') and enumerates exactly what fields are returned: health per hit zone, damage multipliers, attack damage, bleed chance, movement speed, drop table, and spawn events. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_item, search_items, and compare_weapons.

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?

It explains the accepted query forms ('display name in any language or by class name') and the multi-match fallback, which implies usage, but never states when to prefer this tool over get_item, where_to_find_item, or search_items. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond them: the exact shape of the record, the firearms-only per_shot block (damage to a player, muzzle velocity with default ammunition), and accepted identifier forms — useful because there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the payload fields, then the sibling routing — a sensible order. The middle is a long comma-run enumeration of fields, which is dense but every item informs the call decision, so it earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return value and does so field-by-field, including conditional behavior (per_shot only for firearms) and the identifier alternatives. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: class_name accepts either a DayZ class name or a dzpage.com slug, broadening what an agent may pass. The lang parameter is already fully documented in the schema and is not repeated, which is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full record of one DayZ item by class name') and immediately scopes the payload with an enumerated field list, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also explicitly separates itself from where_to_find_item and implicitly from search_items, which returns lists rather than a full record.

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?

Gives clear context ('one item', identified by class name or slug) and names the sibling to use instead for spawn locations: 'For the places on a map where it spawns, use where_to_find_item.' It does not say how to obtain a class name in the first place (e.g. via search_items), so the routing guidance is real but not exhaustive.

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

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the description focuses on what is less obvious: the dataset is vanilla game files with ~5,000 classes and include_mods broadens to Namalsk mod items. It also previews the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing pagination behavior across the 500-page range.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it searches, what it filters on, what it returns, and where to go instead. Scope and the routing hint are front-loaded with no filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers dataset scope, query semantics, filters, and return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only result-paging behavior is left implicit, which the schema's page/limit bounds partially cover.

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 coverage is 63%, and the description adds real meaning for query ('name in any language or by class name') and the category/tier filters. However, page, limit, and include_mods are not addressed in prose, so gaps remain for parameters the schema documents only partially.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search the DayZ item database) with dataset scope (vanilla game files, ~5,000 classes) and supported query modes. The final sentence explicitly distinguishes it from get_item and compare_weapons, so an agent can place it among siblings.

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?

Names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: get_item for a single item's full record, compare_weapons for player damage. It also clarifies that category/tier are optional narrowing filters, leaving the core use case unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's added value is real: it discloses pagination (20 results per page), the data asymmetry between PC and console results, and a prompt-injection caution about operator-controlled strings. It stops short of rate limits or error behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and coverage first, then the platform-dependent data contract, then the untrusted-data warning. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

For a 13-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: platform scope, per-platform result shape, pagination, and injection safety. Gaps remain around default behavior with no filters, tag combination logic, and result ordering, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 77%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the 'PC only' constraints. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the platform choice changes result richness (PC returns live player count, queue, version, perspective, time acceleration, address; consoles only listed details) and by documenting the 20-per-page page size.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search DayZ community servers) plus the scope of coverage (dzpage.com list, PC/PlayStation/Xbox), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_items or get_infected. An agent can tell what this retrieves and from where without opening the schema.

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 implies when the tool is useful (finding DayZ servers, and by extension when PC-only filters apply), but it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not conditions. Nothing routes the agent to or away from this tool versus the other search/lookup siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it validates multiple formats, reports line and column, and returns the complete error set rather than the first failure. It omits the 500,000-character input cap and any note on how results are structured.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, then the error categories, then the key differentiator. The parenthetical file list is long but earns its place by naming supported inputs.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema validation tool, the description conveys what it validates, what it catches, and that it aggregates errors with line/column. Return-value structure and the input size limit are the only meaningful omissions.

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 coverage is 100%, with lang, content, and file_name all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters — it never mentions the language option or the XML/JSON detection role of file_name.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (DayZ server config file), enumerates the exact file names it handles, and describes the defect class it targets. An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like explain_server_setting or analyze_server_log.

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?

Clear implied context: use it to validate a config file before the server chokes on it, and it explicitly notes finding all errors at once rather than failing fast. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative sibling for related tasks.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the exact shape of the answer (top loot buildings, grid square, loot tier zone, building types, totals, loot tiers, nominal count) and a link to the interactive map, plus that it uses the same spawn rule as the map.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, followed by a compact inventory of the return contents and the input convention. The middle sentence is a long list-in-a-sentence, but nothing is redundant or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well. No annotation gaps remain given the read-only hints. It stops short of covering map defaults and failure/ambiguity behavior when an item name cannot be resolved.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining that `item` accepts a class name or a localized item name in any language with concrete examples ('AKM', 'KA-M', 'Verband'), which reinforces the `lang` parameter. The `map` parameter's enum/default is left unaddressed in the description, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

States a specific verb/resource — where a DayZ item can spawn on a map — and enumerates what the answer contains (coordinates, grid, loot tier, building types). It is implicitly distinct from siblings like get_item or search_items, but never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the stated inputs (class name or localized item name), so an agent will know roughly when to reach for it. However there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no statement of when to prefer get_item/search_items instead, and no note about the default map being used silently.

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