Get enemy

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It explains field conventions (list vs omitted, never null), the conditional inclusion of image_refs, and the fact that en/cn never mix. This fully discloses behavior and matches annotations.

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 fairly long and includes detailed field conventions, which are valuable but could be more concise. It front-loads the main action but then goes into edge cases. Some sentences could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 complexity (no output schema, multiple fields), the description covers what the tool returns, field conventions, and conditional image behavior. It is largely complete for an agent to understand the tool's output, though an explicit example or note about required parameters would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While it mentions 'region + game_id' and the tool's purpose, it does not explicitly describe each parameter's meaning or constraints beyond the schema titles. The description adds some context but could be more detailed on parameter semantics.

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 starts with 'Fetch one Arknights enemy's facts by region + game_id', which is a specific verb and resource. It lists the detailed attributes returned, making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_operator' (focused on operators) and 'search_entities' (broader search).

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 the tool is used to get enemy details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_entities' or 'get_stage'. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., knowing the game_id). The guidance is implied but not comparative.

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