analyze_fit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by listing what it detects: mixed weapon systems, mixed shield+armor tank, no propulsion, damage mods without matching weapons. The phrase 'explain the findings' implies the tool returns findings, though the exact output format is not specified. This is adequate for a simple analysis 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?

The description is two sentences: the first immediately states the purpose with examples, the second gives usage direction. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or redundancy It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one array parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage, and detection categories. It could specify the return format more explicitly, but the instruction to 'explain the findings' implies a useful output. For a straightforward analysis tool, this is largely 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 already documents module_names as 'exactly as they appear in the fit/killmail'. The description adds value by instructing to feed names 'from a loss report or a pasted fit', giving the agent context on where to source the data. This goes slightly beyond the schema's description, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Mechanical fit check: classifies each module by type and detects classic mistakes' with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_item, system_intel, or ammo_advisor, which focus on other aspects. The verb 'classifies' and resource 'modules' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: 'Feed it module names from a loss report or a pasted fit'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is well-defined and distinct from siblings, so the agent can infer when to use it. A small gap is the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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