battle_get_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not mention whether polling, message acknowledgment, room existence errors, authentication, or side effects are involved. The phrase 'all messages' raises questions about message consumption that are left unanswered.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and every word contributes 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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description names the expected return areas: status, participants, and messages. However, it lacks guidance on relationship to battle_poll, potential error behavior, and whether 'all messages' has any special delivery semantics. An agent could invoke it correctly but may not fully understand its behavior.

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%, and the schema already documents roomId as 'Full room URL'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and names the exact resources: room status, participants, and all messages. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like battle_send_message or battle_end_room, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from battle_poll, which could also involve reading room state.

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 context is implied by the verb 'Get' and the listed data, suggesting the tool is appropriate when the agent needs current room state or messages. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over battle_poll or any other sibling, and no exclusions are stated.

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