Get a player's recent battles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Recent battle history' but does not state if the operation is read-only, how many battles are returned, what 'recent' means, error handling, or any side effects. This is critically insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely short (6 words) but is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. While concise, it lacks structure and omits critical details. It is under-specification, not efficient conciseness.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and complexity is low, the description should at least explain what 'recent battle history' entails. It does not cover data format, ordering, count, or error cases. The description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has one parameter 'tag' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter, its format (e.g., player tag pattern), or how it is used. The description adds no value over the bare 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 'Recent battle history for a player.' is a noun phrase that vaguely states what the tool returns. The purpose is clear from the title and name, but the description itself lacks a verb and does not explicitly state the action. It does not distinguish from siblings like cr_get_player_battlelog, though the name prefix helps. This makes it minimally adequate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Siblings exist for different games, but no caution or context is given.

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