battle_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so impressively. It discloses the single logical GET request, no auto-pagination, HTTP 200 error body for unknown IDs, array limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records—all beyond what the schema could convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every major claim supports correct invocation or interpretation. It is denser than necessary in places—especially the policy/requirements and 'other filters' phrasing—but compression would risk losing nuance.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it explains the ID source, the return shape, the error behavior, pagination behavior, and data limits. An agent can confidently invoke and interpret the tool from this description alone.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'id' is serviced by the description: it is an explicit queue transaction ID obtained from battle_queue. However, the boilerplate about 'other declared filters being forwarded as supplied' fits poorly with the schema's additionalProperties: false, so the parameter semantics are strong but slightly clouded by a mismatched generic statement.

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', giving a specific verb, resource, and selection mechanism. It further clarifies the ID comes from the sibling battle_queue tool and that team and settings are returned, which usefully distinguishes it from battle_result and other battle-related 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?

The tool states 'Obtain an ID from battle_queue', which implies the intended sequence and gives context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as battle_result or state when not to use it, so there are no clear exclusions.

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