horizon_torn_getMyFactionAttacks

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose. Since annotations are absent, the description should compensate by mentioning whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or any side effects. The description lacks these details.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 large number of sibling tools and parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify how this tool differs from similar ones (e.g., horizon_torn_getMyAttacks, horizon_torn_getMyFactionAttacksSimplified). No output schema exists, so the description should hint at the structure of returned data.

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 most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely states the tool's purpose. For high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get your faction's detailed attacks' indicates the tool retrieves attack data for the user's faction, but it doesn't specify whether attacks are incoming, outgoing, or both. It is clear but vague, especially compared to sibling tools that specify 'simplified' or 'attacks' vs 'revives'.

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 horizon_torn_getMyAttacks or horizon_torn_getMyFactionAttacksSimplified. There is no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer other endpoints.

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