evaluate_encounter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by specifying the 2014 rule variant and that the evaluation includes encounter multiplier and party-size offset. However, it does not disclose what the returned result looks like, edge cases, or any side effects.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key algorithm detail. It is concise and free of filler, though it could benefit from a second sentence covering return behavior or usage examples.

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?

For a calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It tells the agent the general formula components and the monsters shape, but omits what the output contains, how party_levels influence the result, and any limitations or edge cases. An agent would still need to infer or experiment to understand the full behavior.

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. It does provide a concrete format for the monsters parameter ('cr'|'xp', 'count'), which is valuable. However, it does not clarify party_levels or ruleset semantics beyond what the parameter names and default value imply, leaving partial coverage.

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 evaluates encounter difficulty using 2014 rules, including encounter multipliers and party-size offset. This is a specific verb + resource and conveys meaningful differentiation from generic tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like encounter_budget.

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. The description implies use for evaluating encounter difficulty under the 2014 ruleset, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling tool such as encounter_budget would be more appropriate.

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