conflict_actors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic function. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as data source, update frequency, pagination behavior, whether it is a read-only operation, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is overly minimal and lacks structure. It could be improved by adding a brief note on output or usage context without adding significant length.

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 the tool's function of returning actors with event counts, the description does not explain the response format, data source, or any sorting/pagination behavior. With over 200 sibling tools, the contextual completeness is insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to interpret the results or integrate this tool with others.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the function. The schema's description for 'limit' says 'Maximum events to analyze' which may be misleading for a tool that returns actors, but the description does not clarify this. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no extra value.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'armed groups and actors', and the scope 'active in a country with event counts'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like conflict_events (lists events) and conflict_fatalities (lists fatalities) by focusing on actors/groups.

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 usage for listing armed groups with event counts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like conflict_events or conflict_hotspots. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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