horizon_torn_getFactionTerritory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it gets a list, but does not mention whether territories are owned or all, if it requires authentication (though a key parameter exists), or any other behavioral traits like cache behavior or data freshness.

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, succinct sentence of eight words, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without being verbose, so it scores just below perfect.

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 there is no output schema and four parameters, the description is minimal. It does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., territory IDs, names, ownership), error handling, or any additional context needed for 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 100%, so the parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining the purpose of the key, comment, or timestamp parameters.

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 retrieves a list of a faction's territories, specifying the verb 'get' and resource. However, among many faction-related sibling tools, it does not differentiate itself from similar ones like getFactionTerritoryWarsHistory, which could lead to confusion.

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 other faction tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about appropriate use cases, leaving the agent without direction.

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