reaction_available

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the refresh behavior and turn-based usability, which is key for understanding the tool's output. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is a read-only query or what return type to expect.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds essential context. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple and has no output schema, the description covers the core logic but omits handling of the 'conditions' parameter and does not specify the return type (boolean). Somewhat incomplete for full autonomous use.

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 description does not mention any parameter meanings, leaving the undocumented 'conditions' parameter unexplained. Schema coverage is only 50% (only 'spent_since_turn_start' is described), and the description adds no additional semantic detail to the parameters.

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 asks a specific question about reaction legality and explains the refresh rule, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like 'attack_modifiers' or 'turn_plan' by focusing on a single, well-defined concept.

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 when the tool is useful (checking if a reaction can be taken now) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'turn_options'. Provides some context with the refresh rule but lacks clear usage boundaries.

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