horizon_torn_getTornTerritory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description provides no information about read-only/read-write status, authentication needs, rate limits, caching, or pagination behavior. This is a critical gap.

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 (4 words), but it is under-specified. It front-loads the verb, but the brevity reduces utility. It is not tautological, but it lacks detail.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how to use ids, or what constituted 'territory details'. The tool's complexity demands a more complete description.

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 67% (4 out of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the purpose of limit or offset, which lack schema descriptions. The description fails to compensate for schema gaps.

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 details' specifies a verb ('Get') and a resource ('territory details'), but it is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like getFactionTerritory or getTerritoryOwnership. It lacks context about what type of territory this refers to.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives or context that would help an agent decide between this tool and similar territory-related siblings.

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