Plan passive tree

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds behavioral detail beyond safety: the result minimizes point count, orders points sensibly, reports the character level for each point, and includes ascendancy pathing limited to 8 points. It still does not describe the response shape or how infeasible/blocked paths are handled.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core operation comes first, followed by the ascendancy add-on and the input-format note. The phrase 'Also paths the ascendancy nodes (8 points)' is slightly clipped, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back (an ordered, level-annotated path). Five parameters with only two required leave ascendancy and targetLevel under-explained, but the essential contract for calling the tool is present.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description compensates by explaining that passives may be supplied by key, id, or exact name, which is not in the schema. It also clarifies the ascendancy pathing intent for the ascendancy parameters, though it never mentions the targetLevel budget or its default of 90.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: build a minimal-point path from the class start to chosen passives, ordered sensibly, annotated with the level each point becomes available, plus an ascendancy path. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_passives or optimize_build, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as find_passives (search) or optimize_build (tuning). The implied workflow of first finding passives then planning them is left for the agent to infer. Only the input-format note ('by key, id or exact name') hints at a prerequisite.

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