get_threat_map

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it is read-only, defines scope (board-wide, per tile, visible enemies), and gives return content. Lacks mention of edge cases (e.g., no enemies) but overall clear.

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?

Three concise sentences. First defines core purpose, second adds filtering constraint, third provides usage guidance and alternatives. Front-loaded and no wasted words.

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?

No output schema, but description adequately explains return value (map of threat coverage per tile) and visibility constraints. Missing details on exact format or edge cases, but sufficient for basic use.

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 has one parameter (connection_id) with 0% coverage; description does not mention it at all. While connection_id is standard for session, the low coverage requires compensation that is absent.

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?

Clearly states it returns a board-wide map of enemy threat coverage for each tile. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning get_unit_range for single unit and get_tactical_summary for combined digest.

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 tells when to use (identify safe tiles for positioning/retreat) and when not to, with alternatives: get_unit_range for single unit, get_tactical_summary for combined digest. Also specifies only visible enemies.

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