end_combat

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 ('End') but does not explain what this entails—e.g., whether it saves state, clears data, requires confirmation, or affects other game elements like experience or items. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's effects and constraints.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. It front-loads the key action and target, providing immediate clarity without any structural fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity of ending a combat encounter in a game system, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral detail, it fails to address critical aspects like what data is returned, how the game state changes, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with incomplete information 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100%, so there is no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing solely on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is given as it effectively handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary information.

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 ('End') and the target ('the current combat encounter'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_combat' and 'next_turn' by specifying termination rather than initiation or progression. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it should be used at the conclusion of combat or if other conditions must be met. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools like 'update_game_state' that might affect combat, leaving usage context implied at best.

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