Analyze GW1 template code

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'validate and classify' but does not explain what classification means, what happens on invalid input, or what output is produced. The term 'sanity analyzer' is vague.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key action and caveat. No wasted words, but brevity sacrifices important details. Good for quick scanning, but could include more context succinctly.

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 (1 param, no output schema), the description should clearly define input format, output type, and error cases. It fails to do so, lacking return value description and classification categories.

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%, and the description does not describe the 'input' parameter beyond the tool's purpose. It fails to specify that the parameter expects a template code string, leaving the agent to infer.

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 'Validate and classify' and the resource 'Guild Wars template/build code'. The caveat 'sanity analyzer, not a full skill decoder' distinguishes it from more comprehensive tools, providing precise purpose.

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 use for basic validation/classification via the phrase 'sanity analyzer', but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like searching or wiki tools. No direct guidance on when-not-to-use is provided.

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