build_encounter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'builds' encounters but doesn't describe what the output looks like (monster list? CR distribution? XP total?), whether it's deterministic or random, or any limitations (e.g., only uses official monsters). The description is functional but lacks important behavioral context for a generation tool.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place: 'build' (action), 'balanced D&D 5E encounter' (resource), 'using monsters by CR' (method), 'for specified party' (context). No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 generation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but doesn't address output format, generation logic, or limitations. Given the complexity and lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about what 'building' entails and what results to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how party_size and party_level combine) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('build'), resource ('balanced D&D 5E encounter'), and method ('using monsters by CR for specified party'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_encounter_difficulty' (which analyzes rather than builds) and 'get_monsters_by_cr' (which retrieves rather than constructs encounters).

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 context (when you need to create an encounter for a D&D party), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_encounter_difficulty' or 'get_monsters_by_cr'. It mentions 'balanced' and 'by CR' which gives some directional guidance but lacks explicit when/when-not statements.

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