battle_loop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-play behavior, handling of phases, emotion card strategy, phase stuck detection, and return values. It does not explicitly mention state mutation, but that is inherent to 'auto-play'.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by bullet-point-like details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the main behavior and return format (output schema exists), but it omits explanation of the 'max_rounds' parameter. For a tool with only one optional parameter, this is a notable gap. However, the complexity of the battle loop is adequately addressed otherwise.

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 only parameter, 'max_rounds' (default 60), is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no additional meaning or context for this parameter. The default is documented in the schema, but the description should explain its purpose.

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 'Auto-play through an entire battle until it ends.' This specific verb and resource distinguishes it from siblings like play_round (single round) and start_battle (does not auto-play).

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 explains when to use it (for automated battle completion) and provides an alternative strategy: the LLM can interrupt and call select_emotion_card manually for smarter selection. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it compared to play_round, though this is implied.

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