combat_calculator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context by stating it looks up card keywords from bulk data if card names are provided, going beyond annotations to disclose external data dependency and behavior.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the process steps but does not clarify the output format beyond the response_format parameter. It is mostly complete for a combat calculator, but could benefit from describing what detailed vs. concise output includes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates that card names are used for keyword lookup, but the schema already describes the parameters adequately.

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 calculates combat step-by-step with keyword interactions. It uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('combat'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on combat resolution, unlike other rules or lookup tools.

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 outlines the combat steps (declare attackers → declare blockers → damage → state-based actions), providing clear context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the step-by-step breakdown implies its intended use case.

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