Resolve a Nukes combat encounter between units
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| terrain | No | Terrain type (plains, forest, mountain, urban) | |
| attacker | Yes | Attacking unit type | |
| defender | Yes | Defending unit type |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'resolve combat' without explaining what happens (e.g., whether outcomes are random, if modifiers apply, if units are consumed), what the result looks like, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a combat resolution tool.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Resolve a Nukes combat encounter'). It does not waste words or repeat schema details, earning its place. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing broader context, so it is not a top score.
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 complexity (combat resolution with 3 parameters and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome format, whether the result is deterministic or random, or what inputs influence the result. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent on expectations, especially with no annotations to fill gaps.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (terrain, attacker, defender), so the schema already provides the meaning. The description does not add any additional semantic value beyond what the schema states, but it does not need to, so the baseline of 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?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Resolve') and the specific resource ('a Nukes combat encounter between units'), which distinguishes it from other game tools like dice rolls or random encounters. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the 'Nukes' qualifier provides enough specificity for a user to understand its scope.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no statement like 'use for combat resolution' or 'for other Nukes actions, see...'. It gives no usage direction beyond the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear prefixes (chess_, play_, hex_, oracle_, rpg_, ti4_) that separate concerns, but overlap exists between deprecated chess_* tools and the newer play_* equivalents, plus rpg_random_encounter and oracle_encounter both generate encounters. Descriptions help disambiguate, but the redundancy could mislead agents.
Many tools follow a domain_verb_noun pattern (hex_generate_map, play_get_moves, rpg_search_entities), but there are notable exceptions like dice_roll, game_deck_create, jam_status, and random_player_order that mix noun-first and verb-last conventions. The inconsistent ordering makes it harder to predict tool names.
81 tools is excessive even for a broad games toolkit; the deprecated chess_* tools alone add unnecessary bulk. While the scope is wide, the count exceeds practical limits and could be consolidated into fewer, more focused tools.
The toolkit covers a wide variety of game needs: dice, cards, hex maps, chess, RPGs, TI4, jam management, and galleries. Minor gaps like the score tracker lacking a retrieval method and the absence of some lifecycle operations keep it from being perfect, but core workflows are well covered.
