combat_move

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating the action cost, the exact effect (one band closer), the one-move-per-band limit, and that ranges are tracked per opponent. Minor omissions like what happens if already at close range or whether any roll is required are not fatal but prevent a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured: the core mechanic is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise tactical rationale and the per-opponent nuance. Every sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to use it, with no redundant filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it defines the action cost, the directional effect, the magnitude, and the single-target scope. It only lacks explicit mention of return behavior or edge-case handling, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly in a combat turn.

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 0%, so the description must meaningfully explain the two required IDs. It partially does: target_id is implied as an 'NPC' and character_id as the acting 'character' who spends the move action. However, the mapping is left to inference rather than explicitly tied to the parameter names, and no validation or format guidance is provided.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Spend one action to close one range band toward a target NPC.' It also gives a concrete combat context — melee needs close range and a fight often opens at nearby — which makes clear this is the tool for repositioning before a melee strike. This distinguishes it from attack, defend, and other combat sibling tools.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a character wants to engage in melee and needs to close the range band first. It explains the tactical situation ('A fight often opens at nearby') and the move's purpose, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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