scaffold_gear

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavior: it adds resistances below target_resist, a hit pool based on the pool parameter, only fills empty slots, and produces placeholder baseline items. It clearly states the items are not real or optimal.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary. The second paragraph efficiently adds parameter details and workflow context without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, workflow, and limitations thoroughly, making it complete for agent use.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all three parameters: pool (auto, life, energy_shield, none), target_resist (default 75, ignores already capped), and slots (limits which slots, default all). This adds substantial meaning 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 fills empty armour/jewellery slots with placeholder baseline gear, specifying verb 'Fill', resource 'empty armour/jewellery slots', and qualifiers 'placeholder baseline'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like equip_item and evaluate_build by noting it handles only defensive gaps and is not for real gear.

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 explicit usage guidance: use it to complete a build's defenses, then follow up with get_defenses/evaluate_build and get_prices. It also states the assistant still chooses weapon/offense via equip_item and warns never to present scaffolded gear as finished.

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