combat_math

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key behaviors: exact formulas recovered from libgame.so, the attack/armor type mapping, skill_coeff handling, raw Hero.data ratings, and the fact that crit ratings convert to crit chance/damage in the output. It does not mention output structure or edge cases, but the main computation and return content are transparent.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before moving into parameter and return-value details. It is dense but not bloated; a slightly more structured parameter rundown would make it cleaner.

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 tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to cover more ground. It gives the essential formula context and references docs, but missing semantics for several parameters and the return shape leave the agent guessing for valid calls.

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 0%, so the description must explain the nine parameters. It does explain attack_type/armor_type values, skill_coeff, and the crit ratings, but leaves atk, is_crit, target_reduce_rating, and target_tenacity_rating undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Explain one hit using the engine's exact formulas'), making the tool's job clear. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like simulate_fight or combat_effects, though 'one hit' and 'exact formulas' imply that boundary.

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 implies this tool is for exactly computing a single hit's damage rather than simulating a whole fight, and it points to docs/GAME_MATH.md for the formula source. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against sibling tools.

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