Runoscript — Elder Futhark runes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses that generation runs on the website (free tier + paid), not in chat. This is a critical behavioral trait. It also indicates the tool will link to the builder. The description does not detail what happens if the user is not on a free or paid tier, but the core limitation is clearly communicated.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second specifies when to use, and the third provides behavioral context and a parameter hint. Every sentence adds value, and the structure fronts the most critical 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?

Given the simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter semantics thoroughly. It is complete for agent decision-making, especially with the existence of an output schema to describe return values.

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 sole parameter 'lang' has 0% schema coverage, but the description explicitly lists allowed values: 'lang: en|ru|de|es.' This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default, enabling the agent to correctly set the language for the output.

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 tool describes Runoscript's runescript builder and galdrastav (bind-rune) and links to them. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by specifying the use case for creating/building/generating runescripts, bind-runes, or talismans, whereas siblings explain_rune and search_content serve different purposes.

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 says 'Use when the user wants to create/build/generate a runescript, bind-rune or talisman', providing clear guidance. It also notes that generation runs on the website, not in chat, which is a key usage constraint. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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?

No annotations provided, but description discloses read-only lookup behavior, expected output types, and special behavior for reversed=true (inverted divination meaning). No side effects or contradictions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose. Every sentence adds unique information with no 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?

For a simple lookup tool with output schema, the description covers input formats, parameter options, returned fields, and special behavior. Complete and self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates fully by explaining rune (name, stem, latin examples), lang (en|ru|de|es), and reversed (inverted meaning). Adds significant value beyond raw schema.

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 tool looks up the meaning of an Elder Futhark rune, listing the returned fields (name, meaning, phoneme, reading, keywords). It is specific and distinct from siblings (about_builder, search_content).

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?

Describes accepted input formats (rune name, stem, or latin) and parameters (reversed, lang). Missing explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, but clarity is high given sibling tools differ in purpose.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns top matches with title, URL, and snippet, and lists supported languages. This adequately conveys read-only search behavior without claiming destructive actions.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a bullet-like list of topics, return info, usage guidance, and lang values. It is slightly longer than necessary but each sentence adds value.

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 the output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions key fields. The description covers parameter meanings, scope, and usage context adequately for a search tool with three parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing acceptable lang values (en|ru|de|es) and stating the return format (title, URL, snippet), which clarifies the effect of limit and query parameters.

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 specifies the action (Search), the resource (Runoscript's knowledge base about runes), and the content scope (articles, reviews, magic, history). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on search and return format.

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 'Use to ground answers about runes in cited Runoscript content,' which provides clear usage context. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools (about_builder, explain_rune) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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