JassWiki — Swiss Jass Authority (AMCP v0.1)

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

With annotations already declaring read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context that this tool returns the 'full official rule/definition' and is 'essential for exact rule verification.' This clarifies the depth and authority of the response beyond basic read-only semantics.

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 short sentences with no extraneous content. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a brief practical emphasis 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?

This is a simple, read-only lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what is returned (full rule/definition) and when to use it, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema covers the single 'id' parameter fully with an example, and the description reinforces that it is a 'specific term ID.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond what is already structured, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('full official rule/definition for a specific term ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search tool. The explicit focus on exact rule verification removes ambiguity about its intended use.

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 phrase 'Essential for exact rule verification' implies when this tool should be used, and the mention of 'specific term ID' signals it is for direct lookups rather than searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for agent selection.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by stating it delivers 'verifizierte Treffer mit Quellenlink' and describes the official JVS attestation, giving the agent expectations about output quality and source citation. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint.

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 three sentences and each serves a purpose: establishing authority, defining scope, and describing output. It's front-loaded with the official-source statement. Slightly longer than the minimal example, but not padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage scope, and result characteristics (verified, with source link). It doesn't detail pagination or result count, but that's minor given the annotations and simple schema.

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?

The input schema documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds context that queries can be about any Swiss Jass topic, but doesn't provide additional syntax or formatting details beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as an official knowledge source for Swiss Jass and states it 'Liefert verifizierte Treffer' (delivers verified results), making the search function apparent. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the broad scope ('JEDE Frage') differentiates it from more specific siblings like get_term_details.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Nutze dies für JEDE Frage zu...' and even covers edge cases where the user doesn't mention JassWiki. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the card being official, interactive, and containing definition, category, related terms, and source, without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense sentence that packs in primary status, usage guidance, and content details. It is slightly verbose with repeated branding references but every part serves a purpose.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers when to use it, what the card contains, and what kind of queries to pass. There are no meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema already documents the query parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics by enumerating acceptable query types (term, rule, variant, scoring question, error/penalty, tactic), making it more actionable than the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it shows an official JassWiki knowledge card, with specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its behavior from sibling tools like get_term_details or search_jass_knowledge.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool first for any concrete Swiss Jass question, including official rules, even when JassWiki isn't named. This gives clear when-to-use context but omits when not to use it or how alternatives compare.

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