kda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'honest, role-aware read,' hinting at role-based interpretation, but does not explain what this means for the calculation or output. There is no mention of edge cases, error handling, or how the tool handles invalid inputs.

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 very concise, front-loaded with the core action 'Calculate KDA.' The extra phrase 'honest, role-aware read' is brief but vague, reducing clarity slightly. Despite that, it remains appropriately sized for a simple calculator tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are likely covered elsewhere. However, the description fails to explain the 'role-aware' behavior, which appears central to the tool's design. With no annotations and minimal parameter details, the description is not sufficient to fully understand the tool's semantics.

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 should compensate. It implicitly conveys that kills, deaths, and assists are inputs (from the name) and that 'role' affects the calculation via 'role-aware.' However, it does not explain the role parameter's possible values or effect, leaving significant ambiguity for a non-obvious parameter.

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 calculates KDA, providing a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the name and context make the purpose unambiguous. However, the phrase 'honest, role-aware read' adds ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is 'when you need to calculate KDA,' which is minimal and does not clarify how the 'role-aware' aspect should influence tool selection.

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