get_feat_details

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 retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., prerequisites, benefits, source), whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, or how errors are handled. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource type and domain, making it appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short of being fully complete.

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, with the 'feat_name' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples (e.g., case sensitivity) or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific D&D 5E feat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_feats' (which likely returns multiple results) by focusing on a single feat's details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_feats' in the text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_feats' or 'unified_search'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing to know the exact feat name, or clarify that this is for detailed information rather than searching. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendation.

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