analyze_party

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the outputs (saving throws, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires pre-existing party data, or has any side effects. The description is honest but not deeply transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists specific outputs, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear list of analysis outputs (saving throws, role balance, skill gaps, etc.). It is largely complete for its complexity, though missing details like error conditions or prerequisite validations.

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 100% and the input schema already thoroughly describes the sole parameter 'members'. The tool description lists what the analysis identifies, but adds no extra meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'analyze' and the resource 'D&D 5e party composition', and lists specific aspects analyzed (saving throw coverage, role balance, skill gaps, darkvision/language spread). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_loadout or browse_classes.

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 implies usage for analyzing a party composition, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like check_resistances or simulate_damage have overlapping contexts, so more guidance would help.

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