horizon_torn_getMyFactionTerritoryWarsHistory

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing behavior such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or data format. The tool does not specify it is a read operation, and no details about potential side effects are given.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Despite the tool having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no additional context such as how parameters like 'from', 'to', 'sort', or 'limit' affect results, nor does it explain the return format. This lack of completeness could hinder effective invocation.

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 input schema has 86% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the schema already provides most semantic meaning. The tool description does not add any parameter-related information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 'Get territory wars history for your faction' which specifies the action (get), resource (territory wars history), and scope (your faction). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'horizon_torn_getFactionTerritoryWarsHistory' which likely targets any faction.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. While the name implies it's for the current user's faction, there is no mention of when to use this tool versus similar ones like 'horizon_torn_getFactionTerritoryWarsHistory' or other history tools.

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