horizon_torn_getTornAttackLog

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as caching, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, more transparency is needed.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks structure and fails to convey important details. It is not verbose but could be expanded to be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'attack log details' includes or how to use parameters like 'sort', 'offset', and 'timestamp'.

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 86%, so most parameters have descriptions. However, the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The 'offset' parameter lacks a schema description, but overall the baseline is adequate.

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 attack log details' clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (attack log details). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'horizon_torn_getMyAttacks' or 'horizon_torn_getMyFactionAttacks', which also deal with attack logs.

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. It does not specify that it requires a specific attack log code (via 'log' parameter) nor does it mention related tools for broader attack lists.

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