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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: auto-advancing rounds and the optional tactical context (position, enemies, distances, line of sight, ASCII map). Annotations indicate this is not read-only, which is consistent. The description adds meaningful state-change details that an agent needs to set expectations.

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, front-loaded with the main action, then key behavioral notes. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple two-optional-param tool, the description covers the primary action, round advancement, and context options. It does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., invalid combatId, combat already ended), but those are likely handled by the system and not critical for an agent to decide to call the tool. The description is sufficient for a competent agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value for includeContext by detailing exactly what the tactical context includes and when it is advisable to turn it off. For combatId, it relies on the schema's 'uses active combat if omitted', which is already clear. Overall, the description enriches parameter understanding.

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 ('advance') and resource ('next combatant's turn'), and explicitly mentions auto-advancing rounds. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like combat-previous-turn (previous turn) and combat-set-turn (explicit turn selection). No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 about the tool's behavior (auto-advance round) and provides guidance on when to set includeContext false ('routine turns to save context'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus others in the combat family. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is clear enough.

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