attack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the core operation. It does not explain whether the attack is a one-time action or a continuous order, whether the target must be an enemy, whether the unit needs to be in range, or what consequences occur.

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 one short, direct Chinese sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient and front-loads the core action, though it lacks any additional structured context that would make it richer.

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 low complexity (two simple integer parameters) and no output schema, a minimal description could suffice, but the absence of any behavioral context, range, or command persistence leaves an agent without enough information to invoke this tool correctly in varied game situations.

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 must compensate. It does clarify the roles of the two parameters: the unit_id is the attacker and the target_id is the target. This adds a relationship that the bare schema names do not capture.

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 states a specific verb (attack) and a concrete resource (the specified unit attacks a specified target unit). It clearly differentiates from siblings like move or gather by naming the combat action, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 usage context is only implied: you use this when you want a unit to attack a target. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no restrictions.

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