battle_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral detail: unknown IDs return HTTP 200 error strings, only one logical GET is made, no continuation pages are auto-fetched, array responses are locally limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB, truncation is reported, and oversized records are refused. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 main purpose is front-loaded and most sentences add behavioral value. However, boilerplate phrases like 'Required inputs reflect tool policy...' and 'Other declared filters are forwarded as supplied...' are vague and largely irrelevant for a single-parameter schema.

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 single-ID lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers ID sourcing, error semantics, request behavior, and local limits. It partially describes return data by mentioning team and settings as JSON-encoded strings, but does not fully characterize the response shape, which leaves some uncertainty for the agent.

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 single parameter is described as an 'explicit queue transaction ID' obtained from battle_queue, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this semantic clarification is important; it could further specify format or expected length, but one well-contextualized parameter is largely covered.

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 opens with 'Read battle status by explicit queue transaction ID,' naming a specific verb, resource, and lookup key. It further points to battle_queue as the source of the ID, which differentiates it from the many sibling lookup and battle-related tools.

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 gives explicit guidance to obtain the ID from battle_queue and explains how unknown IDs are handled (HTTP 200 with an error string). It does not explicitly contrast with battle_result or other siblings, but the ID-source instruction provides clear practical usage context.

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