get_active_battles

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

The description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the name 'get_active_battles' and the term 'feed' strongly imply no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it is reasonably clear that this is a read-only view.

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, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the purpose and the key alternative. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and how it differs from a related tool, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. There is nothing to explain, making the description complete in this regard.

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 that this tool provides a public combat feed with live wars and recent strikes, and explicitly contrasts it with get_wars for personal wars. The purpose is unambiguous and the verb is implied by the name.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus get_wars: use this for public combat feed, and use get_wars for YOUR wars with role/side detail. This provides clear guidance on selecting the appropriate tool.

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