find_enemy_spawn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by distinguishing 'confirmed locations' from 'likely faction nodes,' which hints at reliability of results. However, it does not discuss read-only nature, output structure, or any other side effects or limitations, which is a gap for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and output types without filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering the essential purpose and the nature of results (confirmed vs. likely). It does not elaborate on the exact format of the response, but for a simple lookup tool with three params, this is reasonably complete. A perfect score would require more detail on return structure or edge cases.

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 provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond reaffirming that the tool works with 'one or more specific enemies.' The steel_path and mission_preference parameters are not elaborated, but they are already well-documented in the schema.

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 a specific action ('Find') and resource ('where one or more specific enemies spawn'), and distinguishes the tool by mentioning two concrete output types: 'confirmed locations from drop tables' and 'likely faction nodes.' This sets it apart from sibling tools like search_drops, which focus on drop tables rather than spawn locations.

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 usage when you need enemy spawn locations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' or comparison with siblings leaves usage guidance to inference.

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