apply_strategy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool 'translates ancient military wisdom' but does not reveal what the output looks like, whether it synthesizes multiple commanders (as hinted by the 'commanders' parameter), or any limitations. For a tool that likely performs analysis and returns a response, the lack of transparency about its operational behavior is a gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word contributes meaning. It avoids redundancy and fluff. The structure is efficient, directly stating both what the tool does and what the user should specify.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, output schema present) and the schema's completeness, the description covers the essential context: it defines the tool's purpose, target domains, and key input directives. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the 'commanders' parameter or alternative tools, but it is largely adequate for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by referencing the 'problem domain' and 'analytical lens', which loosely correspond to 'problem' and 'lens'. However, it does not enrich the understanding beyond the schema, such as clarifying the 'commanders' parameter's role. The added value over the schema is marginal.

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 function: applying classical military principles to modern strategic problems. It specifies the verb ('apply'), the resource ('classical military principles'), and the scope ('business, technology, organizational, or geopolitical analysis'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely focus on specific sources. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('modern strategic problem') and what to specify ('problem domain' and 'analytical lens'), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sun_tzu or napoleon_maxims. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the user to infer alternatives. There is no direct 'use this instead of X' statement.

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