Threats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses grouping behavior, separation of active/contained threats, flags for specific danger types, and the pre-triaged alerts list. It also states the error response for no active fort, providing useful context beyond static schema fields.

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 two sentences and efficiently packs key information: the resource, output grouping, classifications, and error handling. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description is complete for a list-returning tool. It explains the return content, categorizations, and error case, making it self-contained and sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description is not required to explain parameters, and it does not add parameter-related detail. The score reflects that no parameter documentation is needed.

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 tool lists dangerous units on the map, grouped by creature type, and details the specific distinctions it makes (active vs. contained, great-danger flags, invaders, undead). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'military' or 'fort_status'.

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 implies use for assessing map threats but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks a 'use this when' or 'for X, use sibling' note, but the detailed behavior helps infer its purpose.

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