black_souls_battle_options

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: that every entry carries an exact index for use with black_souls_battle_action, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's main purpose. Every part earns its place: the first sentence lists contents, the second explains the utility of indices. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the output: top-level commands, full skill/magic details (including costs and usability), battle items, and enemy targets. This makes the tool's behavior fully clear for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description correctly adds no parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns instead.

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 'List everything the acting battler can do this turn' and details the contents (top-level commands, skills, magic, items, enemies). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like black_souls_battle_action by stating its purpose as a prerequisite for that action.

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?

The description explicitly states 'call this before choosing a battle action instead of guessing,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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