monsters_by_cr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses input format ('1/4', '5'), the range semantics (min..max), and the exact return shape ({count, monsters:[{index,name_en,name_zh,cr}], citation}). It does not mention edge cases, pagination, or error behavior, which would improve transparency, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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?

Two tightly written sentences pack purpose, input format, and return shape with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. There is no redundancy with the schema.

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 list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential contract: purpose, parameter meaning, accepted values, and return structure. Minor gaps include lack of explicit mention of null max_cr behavior and potential errors, but these are not critical for invocation. Overall it is nearly complete.

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 by explaining that min_cr and max_cr form a CR range and by giving concrete value examples ('1/4', '5'). It doesn't explicitly state that max_cr defaults to null, but the schema already provides that default. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / list) and resource ('SRD 怪物' / SRD monsters), and defines the scope by CR or CR range. It also states the intended use case ('供按遭遇预算选合法怪物'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_monster (single monster lookup) and cr_to_xp (conversion to XP). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: when selecting legal monsters for an encounter budget. It also implies a comparison to alternatives by specifying 'SRD monsters' and 'legal', but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one. Still, the use case is concrete enough to guide an agent.

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