titan_get_healing_primitives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It lists what the code does (healing primitives, targeting policies, dispel) but omits details like return format (e.g., code block), whether it includes dependencies, or compatibility notes. Still, it provides substantive behavioral content.

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 in Russian that efficiently front-loads the purpose ('Ready working Lua code of healing primitives'). It lists contents compactly, though a slight restructure could improve scannability; still, every word 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's content and usage. It clearly explains what the code includes and how to apply it, making it complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies since there is no parameter semantic burden for the description to address.

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 provides ready-to-use Lua code for healing primitives, enumerating specific features (ally iteration, HP absorption, target selection, tank search, enum policy resolver, dispel). This differentiates it from sibling tools like titan_get_template or titan_get_example, which are more general.

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 clear usage instruction: 'insert as is and build spec-specific on top, don't rewrite' – establishing when to use it as a base. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies its intended role in healing rotation development.

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