get_build_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states computed by 'real PoB engine' but lacks details on side effects, error behavior (e.g., no build loaded, invalid keys), or performance implications. This is insufficient for a mutation-free 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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Ideal length for quick parsing.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not specify what the default summary includes or any error conditions (e.g., if no build is loaded). For a tool with a single parameter, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 coverage, the description adds critical meaning: explains 'keys' is an optional array of strings for specific stats, gives examples, and clarifies omission yields a default summary. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 returns PoB-computed stats for the currently loaded build, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('build stats'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_defenses (specific defense stats) and get_build (full build data).

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 provides clear usage guidance: pass 'keys' for specific stats or omit for a default summary. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like get_defenses, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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