observe

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 establish the important behavioral fact that this is a pure aggregation of existing bridge reads requiring "no extra plugin support", which reassures the agent it is a safe, side-effect-free read. It says nothing about cost, latency, staleness of the aggregated values, or whether the snapshot is atomic.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload contents front-loaded and the mechanism (aggregated bridge reads) trailing as supporting rationale. No filler or repetition.

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?

The enumeration of returned components effectively substitutes for the absent output schema, and both optional parameters are defaulted, so an agent can call this with no arguments and know what to expect. Minor gap: no note on whether the aggregate reflects live state or a cached snapshot.

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%, with both optional parameters documented in-schema including defaults and the 100–4000 range for max_threat_distance. The description adds nothing about the parameters beyond the phrase "hostile summary", which loosely maps to include_groups. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 uses a specific noun phrase ("Composite snapshot") and enumerates exactly what is returned: game time, HQ, squads with vehicles, stockpile, hostile summary and weather. That is far more informative than a name restatement. It stops short of naming which single-purpose siblings (e.g. get_economy, get_enemy_report) this replaces, so the boundary is only implied rather than explicit.

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?

"in one call" and "Aggregates several bridge reads" imply the use case: prefer this over making multiple individual reads. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of a cost tradeoff (payload size, freshness) and no named alternative for agents that only need one slice of the data.

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