get_enemy_lairs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (strength, distance, direction) and honestly labels the ranking as 'rough', which sets expectations. It says nothing about how lairs are discovered, whether the scan is exhaustive, or how the ranking is computed, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 the resource and immediately followed by the returned fields and the decision it supports. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does list the key fields plus the ranking. For a simple one-parameter listing tool this is close to sufficient; only discovery scope and ranking basis are left unstated.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description is complete (100% coverage) including min, max, and default, so the schema does the work. The prose adds no extra meaning about the radius, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb ('List') and a specific resource ('infected/bandit lairs (hideout groups)'), and names the fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_enemy_density or get_enemy_report, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'so the AI can decide which nest to clear first' implies the intended decision context (target prioritization), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative for related questions like density or combat estimation.

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