get_active_battles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it explains that plans are sealed during a live war, that attack_plan is null unless the strike is your own or the war has ended, and that defenses[]/defense_filed are only populated once finished. It does not cover pagination or what 'recent' means, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the sealing/visibility rules, and every clause carries information. The heavy dash-and-parenthesis construction makes it dense to parse, which slightly hurts scannability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does — naming attack_plan_filed, attack_plan, defenses[], and defense_filed and their live-vs-finished nullability. Only recency definition and result-size behavior are left unspecified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents war_id, api_key, and include_resolved. The description restates their effects rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

Opens with a specific noun phrase — 'Public combat feed: live wars and recent strikes' — that names both the resource and its scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_wars and get_war, and it enumerates the strike subtypes (assaults/raids) the feed contains.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere: 'Use get_wars for YOUR wars with role/side detail,' and states the conditions for include_resolved and api_key. It stops short of a fuller when-not list (e.g., vs. get_war for a single finished war beyond the war_id mention), but the routing guidance is clear.

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