list_enemies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does clarify that this is a read-only listing operation and defines the scope as 'the scene', but it does not explain what qualifies as an enemy, whether inactive or hidden enemies are included, or what the returned list contains.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the scope is stated immediately.

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?

This is a very simple tool, but there is no output schema or annotations to fill in missing context. The description gives the broad behavior but does not define the enemy criteria or the structure of the returned list, which could matter when an agent needs to use the results.

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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline applies and is handled appropriately.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all enemies') and adds the scope 'in the scene'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_gameobjects and list_bros by narrowing the subject to enemies.

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 intended use is implied: use it when you want to enumerate all enemies in the current scene. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives such as query_gameobjects or list_gameobjects, and no exclusions are stated.

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