search_stratagems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns a compact list with a maximum of 10 results, which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and filtering options, and the second adds the result limit and a pointer to an alternative tool. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (four parameters, one required) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential context (search scope, result limit, sibling distinction). However, it does not describe the return format or fields, which could help the agent interpret results. It also does not clarify differences from lookup_stratagem. Still, it covers the basics adequately.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it even omits 'effect' from the list of fields the query matches against, which the schema includes. The description's inclusion of 'detachment' as a search criterion is somewhat redundant since it is a separate filter parameter. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 it searches Warhammer 40,000 stratagems and specifies the searchable fields (name, faction, phase, detachment). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_ploy tool by noting that for Kill Team ploys, users 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 tells when to use this tool (searching stratagems) and provides a direct alternative for ploys (lookup_ploy). It does not, however, mention when not to use it relative to other siblings like lookup_stratagem, but the 'max 10' hint suggests it's for broad searches, not detailed lookups.

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