get_unit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that attributes, weapons, and abilities are returned together and that data-version data is kept apart from fixed report statistics, but says nothing about lookup failure behavior or whether name matching is exact — modest added value over the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause about data version vs. report statistics is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity but does add scope information.

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?

Three required parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema means the description should say more about what a returned record contains and how failures surface. It partially compensates by listing the returned payload (attributes, weapons, abilities) but leaves matching rules and error behavior unspecified.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never attaches explicit meanings to the parameter tokens. It implies name = full name and faction = Chinese faction (useful constraints), but 'catalog number' is only loosely identifiable as source_id and the numeric-string pattern/ID semantics are never clarified.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and a concrete set of resources (unit attributes, weapons, abilities) keyed by catalog number, full name, and faction. That is enough for an agent to distinguish this from list-style siblings such as list_units or get_faction_units, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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 says what is fetched but never states when to prefer this over list_units, get_faction_units, or get_roster, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an exact name/faction match or a prior manifest lookup for source_id. The closing clause about data version vs. fixed report statistics hints at scope separation but is too vague to function as usage guidance.

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