battle_queue

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

With no annotations, the description takes the full burden: it discloses GET semantics, nullability, JSON string wire types, no continuation-paging, array limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This is a comprehensive behavioral profile.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence conveys a distinct behavioral or limitation fact. Some boilerplate lines (e.g., 'required inputs reflect tool policy') could be trimmed, but the structure is largely efficient.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this description covers request type, paging behavior, row/size limits, truncation, and nullability—enough to call correctly. It does not detail error structures, but that is not mandatory without an output schema.

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 0% and the description adds little about 'username' beyond 'explicit' or the vague 'required inputs reflect tool policy'. The phrase about 'other declared filters' is misleading given additionalProperties=false in the supplied schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Read the existing battle queue records') scoped to a username, and explicitly excludes join/submit actions, distinguishing it from any write-flavored siblings.

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?

It clearly says this does NOT join a queue or submit a team, but it never names alternative battle tools (e.g., battle_status) or gives a decision rule for when to use this tool instead.

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