titan_resolve_spell_ids

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond the schema: resolution order (spec spellbook → talent tree → class), unfolding of replacements (Holy Paladin judgment example), and the dependency on spec for correct resolution. Since no annotations are provided, this description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so effectively.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the output, providing use case, explaining resolution order with an example, and giving a critical warning about the spec parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and does not waste words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it resolves IDs, and what to watch out for. It lacks explicit return format details, but the return value ('numeric spell IDs') is implied. The warning about spec and the resolution order make it complete enough for an AI to use 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 schema already covers 2 of 3 parameters (spec and spells) with descriptions. The description adds extra context: snake_case format like SimC, resolution order, and the criticality of spec. However, the 'class' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, and the added information is more about overall behavior than about individual parameter semantics. Thus, it does not fully compensate for the missing class description.

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's function: converting a list of ability names in snake_case into numeric spell IDs. It specifies the resource (spell names) and the output (IDs), and provides usage context ('Для спеков без APL — основной способ получить ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that might handle rotations or specs data.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it is the primary way to get spell IDs for specs without APL. It also warns that 'spec' must always be passed to avoid resolving to another spec's IDs for multi-spec classes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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