battle_simulator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the action (pitting ships) and output type (tactical analysis), but gives no details on what the analysis includes, whether it determines a winner, what format the response takes, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's action and purpose. Every word contributes value, and no unnecessary details or fluff are included.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tactical analysis comprises and what the user can expect in the response. It does not, and it also fails to clearly differentiate itself from sibling 'compare' beyond the verb choice. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding how to use the tool and interpret results.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and examples (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by stating the analysis is 'based on their specs,' which clarifies that the parameters are ship identifiers and that the simulation uses canonical specifications. This surpasses the schema's basic 'description' fields.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Pit') and resource ('two Star Trek ships'), and defines the outcome as 'tactical analysis based on their specs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'compare' which likely focuses on direct stat comparison rather than battle simulation.

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 usage when a user wants to simulate a battle between two ships, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that 'compare' might be more suitable for simple spec side-by-side analysis instead of a tactical battle simulation.

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