Find War Selection unit types by legacy ID or asset path substring and return their build rules, including cost and health.
Find unit types by legacy id or asset path substring (legacyIds.json) with their build rules from gameplay.json (cost, health). Example: 'worker', '201', 'airplane'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by naming the backing files and stating what comes back alongside each unit ('build rules from gameplay.json (cost, health)'), making the closed-world, read-only lookup concrete. It omits match/limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
Two compact sentences with the matching rule front-loaded and examples at the end. No filler; every clause contributes either the lookup key semantics or the returned data.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields (cost, health) and the data sources. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter's effect or whether multiple units can match, which are the only material gaps for a two-parameter lookup tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the 'query' parameter well (legacy id or asset path substring, with examples), but the 'limit' parameter (default 20) is never mentioned, leaving its pagination/truncation semantics undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('unit types'), and matching semantics ('by legacy id or asset path substring'), plus the concrete data sources (legacyIds.json, gameplay.json). This clearly separates it from generic search siblings like search_mod_code or game_data_query, which don't take a unit identifier/path query.
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 examples ('worker', '201', 'airplane') imply the expected query shape, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over overlapping siblings such as game_data_query or game_info, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.