war_ready

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries most of the behavioral weight. It explicitly discloses that the tool is free, has a both-sides trigger condition, and changes the default wait for the defender window by opening assaults immediately. It does not discuss reversibility or response details, but the central mechanic is honestly and clearly stated.

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 three short sentences with no filler: purpose, trigger mechanic, and cost. Every sentence carries distinct useful information, and the most important fact about readiness is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter action, the description captures the purpose, the probability condition, and cost. It does not explicitly cover invalid states such as being on the wrong side of the war, or what happens if only one side calls, but those are largely inferable from context and the strong main flow. It is slightly short of complete, but it is solidly above minimal.

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 has 100% coverage and both parameters are self-explanatory: war_id is the UUID of the war and api_key is the user's API key. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already notes, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific action (signal readiness to fight), a clear context (a mobilizing war), and an outcome (assaults open immediately if both sides call it). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like declare_war or retreat because it describes a cooperative war-wide readiness check rather than a unilateral declaration or retreat.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: during a mobilizing war when the agent is ready to fight immediately. It also explains that both sides must call it, which implies a coordination condition. It falls short of a 5 because it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it.

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