city_ranged_attack

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses some side-effect information ('Does not select the city or pan/flip the camera'), but omits critical attack consequences such as whether it is destructive, whether it consumes the city's ranged attack, target validity conditions, or required permissions.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by prerequisite and side-effect notes. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with three required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps. It covers the basic action and a prerequisite, but not parameter semantics for city_id, attack outcomes, or failure conditions.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The description clarifies that x and y are plot coordinates, but it does not explain the role of city_id or provide format or range details for any parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Ranged attack') and resource ('from a city onto plot (x, y)'), making the action unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the prerequisite listing tool by naming available_city_strikes as a separate step.

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?

It gives clear prerequisite guidance: 'See available_city_strikes first.' This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to its sibling. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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