get-compendium-entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via the verb 'retrieve' and mentions that SRD packs are refused. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any potential side effects or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and output, then adding two key usage guidelines. No redundant information, every sentence earns its place.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter constraints, and return type (full stat block). It references external documentation for further detail. Slightly more detail on the return format could improve completeness, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use the tool.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the compact parameter's purpose (condensed stat block) and the restriction on pack IDs (only premium books, not SRD). This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 retrieves a specific compendium entry by pack and entry ID, listing examples (monster, item, spell) and explicitly mentions the full stat block returned. This differentiates it from sibling tools like search-compendium or list-compendium-packs.

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 guidance on when to use the compact parameter and explicitly states that SRD pack IDs are refused, referencing design documentation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other retrieval or search tools, though context implies it for specific entry retrieval.

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