get_wars

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

Describes the output structure (role, side, enemy, kind, effective status, window deadline, assault gate open) and scope ('wars YOU are in'). While read-only behavior is implied, it is not explicitly stated, and no potential side effects or permissions are mentioned beyond the API key.

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 and well-structured, front-loading the main action ('List every war YOU are in') and then detailing the output fields in a clear list. No redundant or verbose language.

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?

For a list operation, the description adequately specifies the returned fields and scope. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or potential errors, which might be relevant for a complete understanding. Still, it is sufficient for most use 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 only parameter is api_key, which is already described in the schema as 'Your Crowns API key'. The tool description adds no additional meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists every war the user is involved in, specifying roles (attacker, defender, committed participant). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_war or get_war_offers, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for retrieving all wars the user participates in, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives (e.g., get_war for a specific war). No explicit guidance on when to choose this over other tools is provided.

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