pinnacle_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: 'Engine-computed pass/fail for: elemental resists capped...' It discloses the criteria and clarifies that the buffer is advisory. It implicitly indicates read-only behavior by suggesting verification in-game. More explicit statement about side effects could improve, but it's adequate.

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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the paragraph could be slightly more concise. The length is justified by the complexity of the readiness check.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main criteria and provides enough context for the agent to understand the tool's function. A brief mention of the output format would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: explains that min_ehp and min_dps are thresholds, provides context for typical values ('~17–20k EHP'), and advises to adjust based on content. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Gate a build against the endgame/pinnacle checklist — defense beyond raw EHP, plus a DPS bar.' It identifies the specific action (checking readiness) and resource (build against checklist), differentiating it from sibling tools like 'evaluate_build' or 'get_defenses' which are more general.

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 context for when to use this tool: after building, before pinnacle content. It advises to set thresholds to the player's content and to verify additional mechanics in-game. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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