get_enemy_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the response in useful detail (per-group attributes, including the derived firepower score and movement flag), and the word 'report'/'overview' signals a read-only retrieval. It does not state whether results are capped, whether the scan is expensive, or how the defaults interact with undiscovered groups.

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 the scope label first and a compact enumerated field list. Every clause carries information; the only cost is a slightly dense comma run that is still easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden and enumerates the payload thoroughly, while the three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The residual gap is operational rather than structural: no guidance on result volume or on how this differs from the sibling enemy tools.

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 description coverage is 100% — radius, min_size, and include_hidden all carry inline descriptions with defaults and bounds — so the baseline applies. The description adds only an implied hint that filtering is possible ('every hostile group'), and does not clarify the semantics of include_hidden versus the 'undiscovered' wording in the schema.

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 concrete resource ('every hostile group') and enumerates exactly what is reported per group: type, member count, weapon mix, firepower score, distance/direction, movement toward the settlement, and nearest squad. That is far more specific than the bare name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as get_enemy_moves or get_enemy_density, so an agent must infer the boundary from those names.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative. 'Enemy overview' weakly implies this is the broad situational read, but nothing tells the agent when to prefer get_enemy_moves (motion detail) or get_combat_estimate (threat assessment) instead.

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