party_mode

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the process (ask question, select legends, respond in voice, get perspectives) and includes an educational disclaimer. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is stateless, if any data is persisted, or the exact output format (e.g., text vs. structured data). This is adequate but lacks some detail.

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 well-structured with headings, bullet points, and examples. It is slightly lengthy but every section serves a purpose (explanation, usage, examples, disclaimer). A minor trim could improve conciseness, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains that legends respond 'in their authentic voice' and provide 'diverse perspectives'. It does not specify the return format (e.g., array of strings, text block). For a conversational AI tool, this is largely sufficient, but a brief mention of the output structure would make it complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds context by explaining that legends can be auto-selected or specified, and that max_legends defaults to 3 (max 5). However, it does not elaborate on the 'category' parameter beyond what the schema's enum provides. The added value is marginal, so a 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: 'Activate Party Mode - multiple legendary figures discuss your question together!' It uses specific verbs ('discuss') and resources ('legendary figures'), and the concept of a group discussion distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_legend_insight (single figure) or search_legends (finding legends).

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 includes a 'Use this when:' section with four bullet points outlining ideal scenarios (multiple viewpoints, big decisions, varied advice, engaging discussion). It also provides three examples. Though there is no explicit 'when not to use', the positive guidance is clear and sufficient for an agent to make a selection.

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