get_synthesized_spells

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The mention of 'permanently learned' adds some context about data persistence, but overall behavioral traits are inadequately covered.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all spells') and adds qualifying details ('permanently learned through Arcane Synthesis') without unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral constraints, and return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'character_id', 'school', or 'sessionId' represent or how they affect results. The baseline is 3 because the schema provides structure (e.g., enum for 'school'), but the description fails to enhance understanding beyond this minimal schema information.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('spells a character has permanently learned through Arcane Synthesis'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from general spell-related tools like 'get_spell_scroll' or 'use_spell_scroll' by focusing on synthesized spells, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., character must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for temporary spells), or related tools like 'attempt_arcane_synthesis' for learning spells, leaving usage context implied at best.

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