get_pathing_estimate

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

The description indicates the tool is an estimate and returns specific data, aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds value by detailing return information (estimated turns, path length, reachable tiles), which is beyond the annotation's scope.

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: a one-line summary followed by clear parameter explanations and return value mention. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded.

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's simplicity (3 required parameters of simple types, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. It names the return fields, which suffices since the output schema provides full details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains all three parameters with meaningful context. Notably, it clarifies that unit_id is a composite ID from get_units output, adding valuable guidance beyond the schema's type and title.

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 'Estimate how many turns a unit needs to reach a destination', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as no other tool estimates pathing.

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 implicitly suggests usage for planning unit movement before executing, and references get_units output for unit_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no similar tools exist.

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