end_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what ending a turn triggers (opponent actions, state changes), whether it is reversible, or any sequencing constraints, leaving the mutation's consequences opaque.

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 with no filler; it is appropriately sized for the action. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, which is not a conciseness failure.

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?

The output schema covers return values and there are no parameters to document, so the surface is small. Still, a state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output/params needs the description to explain consequences, which it omits.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 ('End') and resource ('current combat turn'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like run_turn or proceed, which an agent might reasonably confuse with ending a turn.

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?

There is no guidance on when to end a turn versus calling run_turn, proceed, or confirm. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely from the name.

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