moose_parse_mission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses copy-on-read behavior, non-execution of the Lua table, and graceful degradation when the file is locked by DCS or the ME. This covers key safety and runtime behaviors, though it does not detail return format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by safety behavior and edge-case handling. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words, making it concise and well-structured.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies the data exposed (group names, unit types, countries, waypoints, trigger names), safety mechanisms, and graceful degradation. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the low complexity and listed data types make the behavior largely inferable.

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 100% with a clear parameter description ('Path to a .miz mission file'), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the .miz extension and file type but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it parses a .miz mission file to expose real group names, unit types, countries, waypoints, and trigger names. The verb 'Parses' and resource '.miz mission file' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tool moose_parse_log by targeting mission files rather than logs.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Kills FindByName misses with the actual entity names,' indicating when to use this tool for resolving entity names. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it meets clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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