get_build_recommendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' recommendations, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a query, generation, or analysis tool, nor does it mention potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part earning its place by specifying key inputs and outputs.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of builds, detailed analysis), how recommendations are generated, or any limitations. For a recommendation tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 75%, with three parameters having descriptions and one having an enum. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at 'party composition' (mapping to 'existing_party') and 'campaign needs' (mapping to 'campaign_type'), but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the decent schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get character build recommendations based on party composition and campaign needs.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'character build recommendations,' with context about inputs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_character_build' or 'compare_character_builds,' which is why it's not a 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?

The description implies usage context ('based on party composition and campaign needs') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_character_build' or 'compare_character_builds.' It lacks clear when-not-to-use statements or prerequisites, leaving usage somewhat ambiguous.

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