get_recommendations

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does signal that output is advisory ('heuristic') rather than binding, which is meaningful context. However, it never states that the call is read-only, whether it has side effects on squad state, or how the recommendations are ordered or prioritized.

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 compact clause with the subject (heuristic action list) front-loaded and examples after a colon — nothing wasted. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, which slightly weakens it but does not obscure meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information; it gestures at the list contents but omits structure, prioritization, and whether each action carries rationale or targets. For a simple zero-parameter read this is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 input schema defines zero parameters at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 names the resource clearly as a 'heuristic action list for the AI squad leader' and enumerates representative contents (defend, resupply, reassign workers, retreat wounded), so an agent knows what it gets back. It does not differentiate from plausible siblings such as get_order or get_mission_plan, which also sound advisory, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The word 'heuristic' implies these are suggestions rather than authoritative orders, but the agent must infer that on its own.

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