get_neutral_report

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 does disclose non-obvious behavior: the neutral-bandit filter is defined as hostile_to_player=false, and the result tells you whether a group can be attacked at all, which warns the agent that some listed groups are non-targetable. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are capped or sorted, or how the radius default interacts with the returned distance.

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 that packs the scope, the filter definition, and the returned fields with no filler. The trailing clause 'with weapons, distance and whether they can be attacked at all' is slightly list-like but every element is informative.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the key returned fields (weapons, distance, attackability) and the inclusion categories. All three parameters are schema-documented. Missing only a note on ordering/pagination and explicit read-only framing, which are minor for a simple list tool.

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% and all three optional parameters (radius, include_hidden, include_animals) are documented with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'distance' loosely relates to radius but adds no syntax, units, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a clearly scoped resource ('non-hostile groups'), and it enumerates what counts as non-hostile: neutral bandits with hostile_to_player=false, animals, immigrants and other neutral factions. An agent can distinguish this from get_enemy_report or get_animal_report by the 'non-hostile/neutral' framing, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call this when you want a picture of non-hostile entities around the base. There is no explicit when-not, no mention of how it relates to get_enemy_report or get_animal_report, and no stated prerequisites.

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