skip_remaining_units

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

Describes implementation using GameCore FinishMoves and asserts reliability, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether moves are consumed, undoability) beyond the action itself. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences, no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema likely documents return values, the description covers purpose, usage context, and implementation notes thoroughly.

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?

No parameters defined; schema coverage is 100%. Description does not explicitly state 'no arguments needed,' but baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the schema implies it.

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 the tool skips all units with moves remaining, which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like unit_action and end_turn by its global scope.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'useful after diplomacy encounters invalidate all standing orders.' Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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