opportunity_attack_provoked

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: it explains exclusions (Disengage, Teleportation, forced movement, unseen mover), states that missing facts return 'cannot-adjudicate', and clarifies that a false prerequisite can short-circuit the need for other facts. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense yet concise: four sentences, each providing essential information. It front-loads the core question and immediately follows with conditions, exclusions, input requirements, and fallback behavior. No filler or 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 the tool's complexity (8 params, nested table policy objects, output schema), the description covers the core decision logic, exclusions, and missing-facts behavior well. The output schema handles return values. However, it does not explicitly mention how table_policy/table_decision or asserted_facts influence the outcome, which could be relevant given their presence in the schema.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 params have descriptions). The description adds crucial semantics for the core decision params: movement_kind is required, and a voluntary path additionally needs leaves_reach and mover_seen_by_reactor. It also explains the 'cannot-adjudicate' behavior. It does not cover policy/context params, but those are likely common plumbing across sibling tools.

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's purpose: to determine if a creature's movement provokes an Opportunity Attack. It specifies exact conditions (leaves reach via own movement, visible to reactor) and explicitly lists what does NOT provoke, making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: it defines required inputs (movement_kind, and for voluntary movement leaves_reach and mover_seen_by_reactor), and it references reaction.available as a separate tool for checking reaction availability. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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