search_troops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the case-insensitive behavior, which is useful, but lacks other behavioral details such as whether it performs substring matching, returns partial results, or has any side effects. For a search tool, this covers the key trait (case-insensitivity) but not the full behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Search troops by name (case-insensitive)'. Every word earns its place, providing the essential verb, object, and a key qualifier without superfluous content.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward search operation, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the search target and matching behavior, though it does not specify the return format or any limits, which is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 100% for the single parameter 'searchTerm', which is described as 'The search term to find troops'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for 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 'Search troops by name (case-insensitive)' uses a specific verb 'search' plus the resource 'troops' and the field 'name', clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_actors and search_enemies. It is concise and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 implies the tool is for finding troops by name, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over other search tools or provide alternative conditions. Sibling tools exist (search_actors, search_enemies), but no direct comparison or exclusion is given, so usage context is only implied.

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