get_defenses

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

The description discloses important behavior: elemental resists include a configurable area penalty, the cap is 75%, and the response includes resistPenalty and a note. This adds context beyond the schema, as no annotations are present.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information, and the structure clearly lists the defensive stats in a readable manner.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns and includes critical details like the penalty and cap. No gaps are identified for this simple tool.

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 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the output content (stats, penalty, cap). The baseline of 3 is exceeded because the description effectively compensates for the lack of parameter info.

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 explicitly states it provides a 'Defensive summary for the active build' and lists specific stats (life, ES, mana, ward, armour, evasion, block, resistances, TotalEHP). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build_stats or get_build which cover broader aspects.

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 usage for defensive evaluation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_build_stats or evaluate_build. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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