lookup_ploy

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

No annotations are provided, but the description implies a read-only operation by describing return data. However, it does not disclose potential constraints like authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. While the nature is clear, more context would improve transparency.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word is meaningful; no redundancy. Clearly structured for quick parsing.

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 lookup tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, inputs, and return value. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds examples for the faction parameter ('Universal', 'Legionaries', 'Kommandos'), which adds value beyond the schema. The type parameter's enum values are clearly listed in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool looks up a Kill Team ploy by name, specifying the return fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'lookup_stratagem' by noting it is for Kill Team and not Warhammer 40,000 stratagems.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (Kill Team ploys) and when not (Warhammer 40,000 stratagems), along with an alternative tool name ('lookup_stratagem'). This provides clear guidance for the agent.

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