Get combatant info

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds some useful context by describing the payload contents and the 'bounded' nature of the events, but it does not explain what 'bounded' means, how pagination works, or what the returned event shape looks like.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, scope, and contents efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 gives enough to understand the purpose and primary input, and there is no output schema, so explaining the return concept is helpful. However, with seven parameters and no explicit guidance about required fields, output format, or the meaning of 'bounded', the description is only minimally complete for a complex tool.

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 only 57%, so the description should compensate for less-documented parameters like playerID, translate, and maxPayloadBytes. It does not: the only parameter-related addition is 'one player source', which merely restates that playerID targets a single player.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CombatantInfo events') and clarifies scope with 'for one player source'. It also names the content type (gear, talents and player state), which distinguishes it from the many sibling get_* tools.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need combatant snapshot data for a single player source. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name any alternative tool, so the agent must infer routing from the tool name and resource.

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