plan_gear

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the greedy heuristic, slot coherence, EHP floor, and that it returns per-slot plans plus projections. It also notes the call is computationally heavy, providing critical decision-making context.

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 dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and trade-off, then explains parameters and behavior. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly streamlined without loss of information.

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 tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main return values (per-slot plan, DPS/EHP/resists). It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains dps_weight (0..1 tilt), auto_base (fills empty slots), min_ehp (survivability floor), and metric (special handling for minion/DoT/trigger). It does not detail rolls or slots parameters, but adds significant value for most parameters.

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 plans a whole gear set maximizing damage while capping resistances, with a specific focus on cross-slot trade-offs. It distinguishes itself by mentioning it builds from scratch and leaves weapons unchanged, making the purpose very specific and actionable.

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 context for when to use (initial gear planning, from scratch) and mentions it is a heavy call (~10-20s). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly with siblings like 'scaffold_gear', leaving some ambiguity.

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