rank_levers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: applies each lever at the given unit, measures real Δmetric, ranks high→low, and uses engine computation. It also mentions that levers are measured independently. No destructive behavior is indicated, and the transparency is 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 moderately concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides details. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value (purpose, usage, examples, caveats). Minor redundancy ('Every value is engine-computed') could be trimmed but overall effective.

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 absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema (not shown but stated), the description is complete. It explains the tool's functionality, input parameters with examples, the greedy nature, and the output as a ranked list. No significant gaps remain.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It does so thoroughly: explains 'metric' as the metric to rank, 'unit' as the amount of investment (default 10), and 'levers' as custom-mod templates with '{}' and gives examples. This significantly enriches the bare 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Rank which stat levers give the most `metric` per unit on the active build', using a specific verb (rank) and resource (stat levers). It clearly distinguishes this as a direction-finder for investment, setting it apart from sibling tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, including default behavior ('Defaults to a broad damage+defense set') and customization ('pass build-specific `levers`'). It also warns about independent measurement ('Greedy/marginal — levers are measured independently, so verify combined picks'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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