battle_simulate

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: deterministic core engine, not LLM-estimated, and optional Monte Carlo stochasticity when simulations are provided. It also discloses the returned metrics, which is useful beyond the annotation.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then lists outputs, optional behavior, and intended use case. No filler or redundancy; 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 compensates by listing all key return values and rating scale. It also covers the optional simulation parameter and the tool's use case, making it complete enough for an agent to select and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and defaults. The description adds the overall simulation semantics and maps simulations to 'optional Monte Carlo win rate,' but it does not add per-parameter meaning 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?

Description states a specific action and resource: deterministic player-vs-enemy battle simulation, explicitly distinguishing itself from LLM estimation and listing concrete outputs (kill slashes, received slashes, killRatio, rating, DPS, optional Monte Carlo win rate). This clearly separates it from siblings like simulate_gacha and compute_power.

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?

Provides clear context: 'used to evaluate combat balance after changing numbers.' It implies when to use it but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, though the deterministic-vs-estimation distinction gives some routing guidance.

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