pob_gem_supports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the current build and revision are not modified, reinforcing non-mutation, and hints that the check runs in a separate Lua sandbox, which suggests isolation. It does not disclose cost, latency, or return shape, so it adds only modest value beyond the 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the outcome is front-loaded before the implementation note. The terseness costs clarity rather than wasting words, so it is efficient but not exemplary.

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?

Safety is covered by annotations, but with no output schema the description should indicate what a 'suitable support' result looks like (a ranked list, ids, reasons). For a validation/computation tool with an undocumented nested gem payload, this leaves a meaningful gap.

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% across two parameters, so the description carries the full burden — but it mentions neither the gems array (id/level/quality/enabled/sourceIndex) nor the optional groupId. Nothing clarifies whether the gem list is the existing group contents or a proposed set, which is the key semantic question for this tool.

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 says it returns suitable support gems for a skill group's draft, which is a recognizable resource+outcome. However, the phrase 'исходная проверка PoB в отдельном Lua' is opaque and does not clearly separate this from siblings like pob_gem_tooltip or pob_update_skill_group. An agent can guess the purpose but not precisely what it distinguishes.

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?

There is an implied context ('for a group's draft'), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as pob_gem_tooltip or pob_add_skill_group. The agent must infer that this is a pre-add validation step rather than a lookup or mutation.

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