advance_turn

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 states the action but fails to explain what 'advance' entails—whether it triggers combat actions, updates game state, requires specific conditions, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool in a combat context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool that likely mutates game state (advancing turns in combat), the description is inadequate given no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation. It lacks details on behavior, effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 50% (only 'encounterId' has a description). The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Since coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the schema partially documents the parameters without description compensation.

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 action ('Advance to') and the target ('next combatant's turn'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'resolve_turn' or 'poll_turn_results', which prevents a score of 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'resolve_turn' or 'poll_turn_results'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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