unit_mission_targets

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and delivers: pagination behavior, that air strikes include target details and a combat preview, and a crucial caveat that 'Expected damage taken excludes interception; unseen interceptors may still exist'. It also explains why fogged destinations are omitted ('legality could expose hidden occupants'), which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, then pagination, then the combat-preview caveats, with no filler sentences. It is somewhat dense but every clause adds usable information.

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 or annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it does describe what targets return (target details, combat preview, retaliation/strength/interceptors) plus paging and visibility limits. The main gap is that valid `mission` values and unit_id semantics remain unspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It explains offset/limit ('at most 100 per page; total says how many exist') well, and the mission-type list hints at valid `mission` values, but the exact accepted strings and the `unit_id` parameter are not documented anywhere.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Legal visible targets for an air strike/sweep, nuke, paradrop, rebase or airlift mission') and anchors this as a lookup step distinct from the action step. It also names the sibling unit_mission as the tool that actually issues the order, so an agent can separate querying targets from executing them.

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 clearly says the relevant missions are 'listed in available_unit_actions' and that you 'use unit_mission to issue the order', giving both the upstream discovery tool and the downstream action tool. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, but the routing context is strong.

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