build_assistant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering behavior for 'priority_stats' and the conditional use of subclass fragment when 'include_subclass_fragment' is true. However, it does not address possible side effects, error conditions, or what 'fault diagnosis' entails.

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 short (two sentences) and includes key points. It is reasonably front-loaded with the overall purpose. However, the first sentence is somewhat vague ('配装聚合入口'), and more structure could improve 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 19 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the full workflow (e.g., what 'diagnosis' returns, how 'confirmed' equips, etc.). The tool is complex, yet the description covers only a fraction of the needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description explicitly explains only 'priority_stats' (strict ordering) and 'include_subclass_fragment' (uses current subclass/fragment). The remaining 17 parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to infer their purpose.

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 states it is a build aggregation entry covering recommendation, candidate checking, fault diagnosis, and equipping after confirmation. This clearly indicates the tool's domain and actions, distinguishing it from sibling assistants focused on other aspects (inventory, weapons, etc.).

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 when to use the tool: for build-related tasks like recommending, checking candidates, and equipping. Sibling tools differ in domain (inventory, weapons, etc.), providing implicit context. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given.

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