get_enemy_density

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the return format (ASCII heatmap) and the default cell granularity, but says nothing about the effect of the radius parameter, whether hidden enemies are silently included, cost/latency, or any permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the practical purpose; the parenthetical default is compact. Slight redundancy with the schema's step default is the only waste.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the output shape well but leaves radius semantics and the include_hidden flag unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the zero annotation coverage.

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 67%: step and radius already document their own defaults and bounds, and the description merely restates the 250-unit default. include_hidden is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap it could have closed.

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 names a specific output artifact (ASCII heatmap) and a specific subject (hostile group members over the map), which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_enemy_moves or get_enemy_lairs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_enemy_report or get_terrain_grid, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Useful for seeing where the threats concentrate' implies the use case (threat concentration analysis) but gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative tool. An agent can infer intent but must guess whether this or get_enemy_report is the right call for a threat overview.

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