check_resistances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool produces a consolidated defense matrix and warns about gaps, which outlines its output behavior. However, it does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, or permission requirements, leaving room for improvement.

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 sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the output format (consolidated defense matrix and warnings) and the input constraints (monster group up to 20). It could be more detailed about the matrix structure or limitations, but it provides sufficient context for basic usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds little new information beyond what is in the schema parameter descriptions; it merely restates that party_damage_types warns about gaps. Thus, it meets the baseline without significant added value.

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 checks resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities for a group of monsters, and specifies it produces a consolidated defense matrix and warns about party damage type coverage gaps. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_monsters or simulate_damage.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context is implied (checking resistances for a monster group with party damage types), but no comparisons or exclusions are given.

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