dd2_enum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output ordering ('sorted by value'), but does not state that this is a read-only query, what happens with an invalid type name, or whether enum types must be fully qualified beyond what the examples suggest.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the core behavior and illustrative examples are packed efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single-parameter surface is simple. However, the description omits the discovery path for valid enum type names and error behavior, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'type_name' parameter. The examples ('app.Character.JobEnum', 'app.WeaponID') do show the expected fully-qualified format, which is valuable, but they do not explain how to discover valid type names.

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 states a specific resource (named values of an enum type) and includes concrete example type names, so an agent knows it enumerates members of a single enum. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling dd2_types, which likely lists available types, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the type name must come from dd2_types), and no comparison with alternatives like dd2_types or dd2_job. Usage is only implied by the examples.

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