determine_primary_mission

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the mission depends on the opponent's Force Disposition, not your own, and that non-mirror matchups yield different missions. It does not describe the return format or potential edge cases, but since annotations are absent, this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds one essential rule. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the core logic and usage. The only gap is not specifying the output structure, but the tool's name and description make the intended result clear. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and enums for both parameters, the schema already defines their values. The description adds meaning by clarifying the relationship between the parameters: your_disposition and opponent_disposition are used together, and the mission is looked up from the opponent's disposition. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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: determining each player's Primary Mission from their Force Dispositions in Warhammer 40,000 11th Edition Matched Play. It uses a specific verb 'Determine' and names both the input (Force Dispositions) and output (Primary Mission), fully distinguishing it from sibling lookup 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 for when to use the tool: it is specifically for Matched Play and explains the lookup rule (from the opponent's disposition). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given its unique role among siblings, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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