calculate_aoe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's function and supported shapes, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it modifies game state, error handling, or performance characteristics. The examples add some context but leave gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The examples are detailed but necessary for understanding parameter usage. However, the lengthy examples make it slightly less concise, though each sentence earns its place by demonstrating real-world applications.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (8 parameters with nested objects), the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does and provides examples, but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or integration with other game systems. It's adequate for basic use but has clear gaps for full contextual understanding.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds value by providing concrete examples with specific parameter values (e.g., radius: 4 for Fireball, angle: 90 for cone), clarifying units (tiles, degrees), and illustrating shape-specific parameter combinations beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate which tiles and participants are affected by an Area of Effect spell or ability.' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), the resource ('tiles and participants'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on AoE calculations, unlike other tools for narrative notes, character management, or combat actions.

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 implies usage for AoE spells/abilities with supported shapes (circle, cone, line), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides examples but lacks guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other calculation or combat tools in the sibling list.

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