get_vehicle_hunt

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real information about what is returned (ownership, cargo/fuel, nearest squad, unowned candidates). It does not state that the call is read-only, how large the result set may be, or what happens when no vehicles exist in range, which would matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, and the two result groups (owned vehicles with context, plus unowned capture candidates) are parsed out cleanly. Slightly more structure, such as separating the two result sets, could improve scanability.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves gaps: it does not clarify the spatial scope of the first result group (whole known map vs. HQ-centered), nor confirm the operation is non-mutating. Adequate but not fully closed out.

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 one optional parameter (radius) with 100% schema description coverage including default and bounds, so the schema already does the work. The description only implicitly ties radius to the unowned-vehicle listing ("unowned vehicles suitable for early-game capture") without explaining that the radius applies solely to that portion of the result.

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 specific verb ("List") and resource ("vehicles") and enumerates what each entry contains: ownership, cargo/fuel, nearest squad, plus a separate set of unowned vehicles for early-game capture. That is enough to distinguish it from a generic map tool like get_vehicle_map, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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 only implied: the mention of "unowned vehicles suitable for early-game capture" hints at an early-game scouting use case, and the presence of take_vehicle among siblings suggests this is the discovery step before that action. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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