Get fight healing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds two behavioral facts — compatibility-shim status and bounded source scope — but 'bounded source semantics' is so vague that its concrete behavioral implication (which scope dimensions are restricted and how) is unclear.

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?

At eight words, it is maximally compact and front-loads the most identifying phrase ('Compatibility alias for get_healing'). But the compactness sacrifices clarity: 'bounded source semantics' is dense jargon that an agent would likely need expanded.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is thin. It provides no return-value information, no pagination/limit behavior, and no concrete definition of the bounded scope, leaving the agent to guess the tool's core semantics from its name alone.

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 64%, and the description adds zero parameter information. It does not clarify how fightID, playerID, and abilityID interact to define the 'bounded source' — the tool's central semantic — nor does it fill gaps left by the four undocumented parameters (abilityID, translate, maxEntries, maxPayloadBytes).

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 title 'Get fight healing' plus the alias reference to get_healing identifies a healing-query tool, and 'bounded source semantics' signals a scope restriction that distinguishes it from the sibling get_healing. However, the description never plainly states 'returns healing for a specific fight/source' — the clarity relies partly on inference from the name.

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 names get_healing as the aliased tool, giving one comparison point, but it never states when to choose this tool over get_healing or get_fight_damage. Worse, 'compatibility alias' could steer an agent toward preferring get_healing, implying this variant is deprecated. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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