creature_valid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the three possible outcomes and the ambiguity of 'cannot-adjudicate' (2014-only vs typo vs third-party). However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, how optional parameters like table_policy affect behavior, 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 efficiently defines the tool's core purpose and outcome categories with no wasted 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?

The tool has a very rich input schema with optional nested objects for policies and contexts, but the description only covers the core name-validation behavior. It does not explain why an agent would pass table_policy, asserted_facts, etc., nor how they influence results. Given the absence of annotations, this is a significant gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only adds meaning to 'name' by defining it as a creature name to validate. The other parameters (request_id, table_policy, asserted_facts, policy_context, table_decision) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 validates whether a name is an SRD 5.2.1 creature and defines three outcome categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like creature_stats or spell_facts, which likely provide details for already-valid names.

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 context: use this tool when you need to classify a name as legal/illegal/cannot-adjudicate. It also explains the 'cannot-adjudicate' limitation, which helps an agent avoid misusing it for non-SRD names. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other tasks.

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