foundry_next_turn

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with 'Advance'. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details beyond that, such as side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or what happens if no encounter is active.

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 one-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the action verb. It wastes no words, though its brevity sacrifices contextual explanation. The structure is fine but could have been slightly expanded without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema and only readOnlyHint=false as an annotation, the description is too sparse for an agent to understand execution context. It omits prerequisites, observable effects, or edge cases like advancing past the last turn. This leaves meaningful gaps for a tool that mutates game state.

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 covers userId and clientId but leaves the encounter parameter undocumented (67% coverage). The description does not clarify what 'encounter' refers to, whether it is optional, or how to obtain a valid ID, failing to compensate for the gap.

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 clear verb 'Advance' and identifies the resource as 'the next encounter turn'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like previous_turn and next_round by specifying turn direction and unit.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implicitly suggests use during an encounter but lacks any statement of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as requiring an active encounter.

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