Describe Runoscript's runescript builder and galdrastav (bind-rune) and link to them. Use when the user wants to create/build/generate a runescript, bind-rune or talisman. Generation runs on the website (free tier + paid), not in chat. lang: en|ru|de|es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| galdrastav | No | ||
| runescript_builder | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses that generation runs on the website (free tier + paid), which is a key behavioral constraint. No other behavioral traits are critical for a descriptive tool.
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?
Description is relatively concise with two main ideas: what it does and usage guidance. Could be tightened slightly but is not verbose.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter with default, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning thoroughly. No 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds allowed values for lang (en|ru|de|es) beyond the schema, which only has a default. This compensates fully.
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 it describes the runescript builder and galdrastav, and links to them. It distinguishes from siblings (explain_rune, search_content) by focusing on the builder tool.
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?
Explicitly instructs to use when the user wants to create/build/generate a runescript, bind-rune, or talisman. Also notes that generation occurs on the website, not in chat, providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: about_builder for creating bind-runes, explain_rune for rune meanings, and search_content for knowledge base queries. No overlap.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (explain_rune, search_content), but about_builder uses a preposition_verb pattern, breaking consistency.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's domain: rune reference, bind-rune creation, and knowledge base search. Not too few or too many.
Covers core needs (meaning, creation, search) but lacks a tool to list all runes or get an overview, which is a minor gap.
