add_weapon

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'adds' a component but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the platform is modified permanently, or if any validation occurs). The return type is noted, but more context on impact would improve transparency.

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 concise with a clear structure: a header line, a parameter list, and a return note. Every sentence adds information, but the parameter descriptions could be more tightly integrated. Overall, it's efficient and well-organized.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers parameters and return but misses usage context and behavioral details. For a straightforward tool, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'scenario_id' as UUID, 'weapon_type' as AFSIM type with example). It also clarifies the optional nature of 'weapon_name' and the return value, adding value beyond the 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 clearly states the action 'Add', the resource 'weapon component', and the target 'platform'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_mover' and 'add_sensor' by specifying the weapon type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'add_mover', 'add_sensor'). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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