get_unit_range

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Starts with 'Read-only' indicating non-destructive operation. States works for any alive unit, own or enemy, clarifying ownership constraints. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but adequately covers key behavioral traits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only,' no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and alternative.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description covers behavior, input format, and usage guidance. Lacks mention of error conditions or what happens with invalid inputs, but is 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains unit_id with an example ('red_cavalry_2') but does not explain connection_id at all. With only two parameters and one left undocumented, the description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a unit's full threat zone (move and attack tiles) and specifies it works for any alive unit, own or enemy. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_threat_map by noting the difference between single-unit and board-wide overview.

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 (plan positioning or evaluate enemy threat coverage) and when to prefer alternative (get_threat_map for board-wide overview). Also provides unit_id format example.

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