configure-combat-tracker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the read-versus-write nature, the echo of previous→new for changed fields, the no-op behavior for re-applying current values, and the GM-only permission. It does not explicitly state that changes persist to the world config or describe error handling for invalid values, but those are partially covered by the schema and the overall context is 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 description is three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and packs essential usage directives (no-arg read, echo, no-op, GM-only) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Given the nested turnMarker object, three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key context an agent needs: how to read, what fields are configurable, the no-op guarantee, and access restrictions. It does not describe the exact output shape, but it names what the read returns (current config and valid animation ids), which is sufficient for a first call. Slightly more detail on error behavior would push it to a 5, but it is adequate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a conceptual grouping of the three parameters (turn marker, resource, skip-defeated) and explains the read-mode behavior with no arguments, but it does not significantly deepen parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 names a specific verb (read or configure), the exact resource (the world's core.combatTrackerConfig setting), and the three configurable areas (turn marker, tracked resource, skip-defeated). It distinguishes this tool from any sibling by naming its unique setting; no other sibling tool covers combat-tracker configuration.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to call with no arguments (to read) and clarifies that re-applying the current value is a no-op, which prevents redundant writes. It also states the GM-only access restriction. It does not mention alternatives, but no sibling tool is a direct alternative, so this is not a significant gap.

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