horizon_torn_getMyFactionTerritory

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic read operation. It does not mention caching, authentication requirements, or whether it is destructive. The optional parameters (key, comment, timestamp) are documented in the schema but not explained in 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 sentence of 10 words, conveying the core purpose without any fluff. It is as concise as possible while still being informative.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema, but the description could benefit from indicating the type of data returned. It is adequate but not thorough. Given the lack of annotations and usage guidance, completeness is moderate.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema. Per guidelines, baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'your faction's territories', indicating a read operation on faction territories for the user's own faction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'horizon_torn_getFactionTerritory' which may retrieve territories for any faction, so the clarity is slightly diminished.

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 vs alternatives like 'horizon_torn_getFactionTerritory'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The sibling list includes a generic version, but no contrast is provided.

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