get_enemy_moves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: state is persisted to .local/cache and the output is a delta (only groups that changed). It stops short of saying what the first invocation returns or whether stale cache entries can produce misleading deltas.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the persistence detail is parenthetical and the return contents are listed compactly. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only-style tool with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers what is returned and the key delta/persistence behavior. Only edge cases (first call, empty delta, cache invalidation) are left unaddressed, which is minor at this complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline of 4 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?

States a specific resource and behavior: hostile group movement tracked between calls, showing groups that changed position/destination plus speed and ETA at HQ. This clearly separates it from static siblings like get_enemy_density or get_enemy_lairs, though it names no sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'between calls' and the cache persistence imply this is meant to be polled repeatedly for deltas, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_enemy_report or get_enemy_density, nor any statement about first-call behavior or polling cadence.

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