mhw

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. While it describes what data is returned, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose and what data it returns. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the data details.

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 clear gaps. It covers what data is returned but doesn't address behavioral aspects or usage context. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should do more to compensate, particularly around behavioral transparency.

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 documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage and no parameters mentioned in the description, the baseline score 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 tool's purpose: 'List armor pieces from Monster Hunter World' with specific attributes (type, rank, defense, resistances, slots). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('armor pieces'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_weapons or get_monsters beyond the resource type.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest any context for choosing this tool over others. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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 describes what data is returned but doesn't address key traits like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The description adds some context on data fields but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 front-loads the purpose and details the included data fields without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the data scope well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it minimally viable for a simple read operation.

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 documents the single parameter 'limit' with its type and default. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as usage examples or constraints, meeting 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 ('List') and resource ('monsters from Monster Hunter World'), specifying what data fields are included (type, species, elements, ailments, weaknesses). It distinguishes from siblings like get_armor, get_skills, and get_weapons by focusing on monsters, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 implies usage for retrieving monster data but doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over others.

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 states the tool lists skills with descriptions and rank-level details, but does not cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, safe to use, has rate limits, or requires authentication. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes relevant details like descriptions and rank-level details, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to 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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a simple list tool, this might suffice, but it does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving some gaps in 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter documented as 'Maximum number of skills to return. Defaults to 20.' The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond this, such as usage tips or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'List skills from Monster Hunter World, including their descriptions and rank-level details.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('skills'), and scope ('Monster Hunter World'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_armor or get_weapons, which likely list different resource types. This makes it clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for skill-related queries rather than armor or monster data. Without such guidance, users may struggle to select the correct tool among similar options.

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. While it mentions listing and filtering, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and optional functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text or 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?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what the return values look like, how results are structured, or important behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to effectively use it.

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 both parameters (type and limit) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional filtering by weapon type, which is already covered in the schema. 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 ('List') and resource ('weapons from Monster Hunter World'), and includes optional filtering functionality. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_armor or get_monsters, but the resource specificity provides implicit differentiation.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning optional filtering by weapon type, which suggests when to use this parameter. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_armor or get_monsters, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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