browse_races

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can list all races or provide details on a specific race, including traits, ability bonuses, and subraces. It does not explicitly state it's read-only, but this is inferred. A score of 4 reflects good but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and efficiently covers both modes of operation.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It could mention that the tool is read-only, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that omitting the parameter lists all races while providing it yields specific details. This clarifies the dual behavior based on parameter usage.

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 browses D&D 5e SRD races, with the ability to list all or view a specific race's details. It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('races'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'browse_classes' by explicitly mentioning races.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'browse_classes' or when not to use it. The implied usage is clear from the description, but there are no exclusionary statements or comparisons to siblings.

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