dnd5e

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly describes a read-only operation ('Get details'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid indices. The description doesn't contradict any 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and parameter usage. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned or error conditions. Without annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'index' parameter. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter concept with examples, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the 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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('for a D&D 5e character class'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for character classes rather than monsters or spells. It provides specific examples ('barbarian', 'wizard', 'rogue') to illustrate the domain.

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 implies usage by stating it retrieves class details by index name, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like list_spells or get_monster. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('Get full details') and the input requirement ('by its index name'), but does not disclose additional traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the index is invalid), response format, or any rate limits. This is a moderate gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input method, and examples without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and input, but lacks details on output (e.g., what 'full details' includes), error cases, or behavioral nuances. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps in understanding the full context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'index' fully documented in the schema as 'Monster index name in kebab-case'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by restating 'by its index name' and providing examples, but does not elaborate on semantics like format constraints or validation rules. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get full details') and resource ('for a D&D 5e monster'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_class' and 'get_spell' by specifying the monster domain, and provides concrete examples ('aboleth', 'dragon-red-adult', 'goblin') that reinforce the scope.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool by specifying 'by its index name' and providing examples, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_spells' (which likely lists multiple items). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as when to use 'get_class' or 'get_spell' instead, leaving some ambiguity in tool 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function (retrieving spell details) and input format (index name in kebab-case), but lacks information on potential errors (e.g., invalid index), response format, or any rate limits or authentication needs. It adds basic context but misses deeper behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and examples without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core function and uses parentheses to include helpful examples, making every part of the sentence earn its place.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks an output schema, so it does not explain return values or error handling, which are important for a retrieval tool. The description covers the basics but misses details needed for full contextual understanding.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'index' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the parameter's purpose and providing examples ('fireball', 'magic-missile', 'cure-wounds'), but does not explain semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a D&D 5e spell'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_spells' by specifying retrieval of details for a single spell rather than listing multiple spells. It includes concrete examples ('fireball', 'magic-missile', 'cure-wounds') to illustrate the scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to get details for a specific spell by its index name) and implicitly distinguishes it from 'list_spells' (which lists spells rather than retrieving details). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_class' or 'get_monster' for other resource types.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists spells but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'index names' entail. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'index names' are, how the list is formatted, or any behavioral aspects like response structure or limitations, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in this context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary details beyond the 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available D&D 5e spells'), specifying what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_spell', which likely retrieves a single spell, leaving some ambiguity about sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about usage scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_spell', leaving the agent without explicit direction for tool selection.

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