relevant_uniques

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It transparently states the tool returns candidates based on matching criteria and that numbers come from the engine. It does not disclose state-dependence explicitly but implies it via 'active build'.

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 about five sentences, well-structured starting with purpose and then details. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise. No redundant 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 has one optional parameter, output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, matching logic, candidate status, and recommended follow-up actions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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% and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter. However, the parameter is a single optional integer with a self-explanatory name and default, so minimal additional meaning is needed. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 surfaces unique items and jewels that synergize with the active build, matching against scaling and skill name. It distinguishes from related tools like get_unique by noting these are candidates, not verified.

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 usage guidance, advising to follow up with get_unique, equip_item, or equip_jewel to measure actual impact. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list direct alternatives.

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