get_combat_log

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no authentication, or has rate limits. Details about pagination, result ordering, or limits are missing.

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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. Every element serves a clear function.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of return content (battles, units, damage, conflicts). However, it lacks specifics on format, ordering, or whether the log is aggregated per turn. For a simple log tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 input schema already describes the single 'turns' parameter with default value, yielding 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further semantic information about the parameter, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool provides 'recent combat history' and explicitly lists included details (battles, units, damage, conflicts). It is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_military_intelligence or get_strategic_overview, which focus on broader military analysis.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like get_military_intelligence or get_strategic_overview, there is no explicit context for when combat log is preferred. The description does not address prerequisites or scenarios.

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