lookup_stratagem

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns CP cost, phase, timing, target, and effect, and implies it is a read-only operation. However, it does not specify behavior when the name is not found, whether match is exact or partial, case sensitivity, or what happens with multiple matches. The description is adequate but lacks completeness.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and ends with a direct pointer to an alternative tool. Every sentence adds value.

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 lookup tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. However, it lacks an output schema and does not explain error handling or edge cases. The context signals (no output schema, 4 params) suggest a need for minimal additional detail, which the description mostly meets, but could still improve by noting what happens if the stratagem is not found.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, only stating 'by name' to indicate the name is primary. It does not clarify the optional filters (faction, phase, detachment) beyond what the schema already describes, so minimal added value.

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 looks up a Warhammer 40,000 stratagem by name and lists the specific fields returned (CP cost, phase, timing, target, effect). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool lookup_ploy by noting that Kill Team ploys should use lookup_ploy instead.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for stratagems and to use lookup_ploy for Kill Team ploys, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when to use search_stratagems (fuzzy search) as an alternative, which would improve guidance.

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