build_advice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns principles and sections, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or safe. However, it implies no side effects and is consistent with a safe advisory tool.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and one sentence for parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could combine sentences, but no wasted words.

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 a single optional parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage and output concept. It might benefit from listing possible topics comprehensively, but the examples are representative.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the default behavior when omitted and providing concrete examples of valid topics. This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 provides 'Evergreen PoE2 build-optimization principles' and distinguishes itself from numeric compute tools by noting that actual DPS/EHP numbers come from elsewhere. This separates it from sibling tools like evaluate_build and get_build_stats.

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 explicitly explains when to omit or pass the 'topic' parameter, listing examples of valid topics. It also clarifies that this tool is for principles, not a meta snapshot, directing the agent to use compute tools for actual numbers.

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