build_battle_processing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states 'Read-only: returns { command }', clearly disclosing that the tool has no side effects and returns a command object. It also explains how canEscape/canLose gate battle result branches, adding behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value—purpose, parameter behavior, and read-only nature are all conveyed without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the essential points: what it builds, how it integrates with insert_event_commands, the key parameter modes, and the return shape ({ command }). The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly stating the return value.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the three troop selection modes (direct id, variable, random) and how canEscape/canLose affect branches, going beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 tool builds a Battle Processing (301) event command, with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('Battle Processing event command'). It also distinguishes this from sibling builders by naming the exact event command type and connecting it to insertion via insert_event_commands.

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 explicitly places usage in the context of insertion via insert_event_commands, providing clear context. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, falling short of a 5.

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