stance

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about pre-combat and a requirement for confirmation from a player or session-host, which gives some behavioral insight beyond the annotations. However, it remains ambiguous whether the tool itself performs the confirmation or just reports the need for it.

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 short, consisting of two sentences, but the first is an awkward noun phrase that sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is not efficiently structured, though there is no excess wordiness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description leaves the tool's core purpose ambiguous and fails to explain the 'ref' parameter. The pre-combat context is a hint but not enough to understand the tool's operation or invocation 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 schema has one parameter 'ref' with no description, and the description provides no explanation of the parameter. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate at all, leaving the agent without any guidance on what 'ref' refers to.

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 lacks an explicit verb or action. "Pre-combat context with canonical assessment" is a noun phrase that does not clearly state what the tool does. It is vague and does not distinguish the tool from siblings like derive, qa, or report.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The second sentence mentions a domain requirement (confirmation of hand/equipment state) but does not connect it to the tool's usage or mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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