horizon_torn_getTerritoryWarReport

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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'Get territory war details', implying read-only, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, caching behavior, or whether the data is real-time or historical. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very short (4 words) and front-loaded, but it is overly minimal. Conciseness is good, but the lack of substance reduces its utility. It could have been more informative 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention the structure, fields, or any details about the territory war report. Given the complexity of territory wars in Torn, this is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already exist. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'territoryWarId' is described as 'Territory war id', which is tautological. The description fails to add context like format or source of the ID.

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 territory war details' clearly identifies the resource (territory war) and action (get), but is vague on what specific details are included. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like getFactionTerritoryWarsHistory or getTerritoryOwnership.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not state prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred over other territory-related tools.

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