rank_upgrades

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states 'Read-only — every probe is snapshotted and restored,' and explains the non-additivity behavior. No contradictions.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear front-loaded purpose statement. Every sentence adds value—covering mechanism, read-only safety, non-additivity, empty slots, and cross-references to other tools. No fluff.

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 (true), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers usage context, behavioral notes, and cross-references fully, making it complete for a ranking tool of moderate complexity.

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 description mentions metric and goals with examples ('TotalDPS' and weighted blend), and implies slots and rolls. However, with 0% schema coverage, it could explicitly define each parameter (e.g., what 'rolls' or 'top' means). Still, it adds some value beyond the 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: 'Rank gear slots by upgrade potential — what should I craft/upgrade next?' It uses a specific verb ('rank') and resource ('gear slots'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like optimize_item by explaining the different use case.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (for prioritization), when not (gains not additive, re-run needed), and alternatives (optimize_item for empty slots, get_prices for cost). It warns about non-additivity and recommends a workflow: 'recraft the top slot, equip it, then re-run.'

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