dd2_weapons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add useful behavior by stating the no-filter result shape and the vocation-mask encoding. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any access constraints, leaving a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 definition is two compact sentences, front-loaded with the table fields and then the filtering behavior. Every sentence adds information without repetition.

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 moderate complexity, existing output schema, and absence of annotations, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool correctly: available fields, filters, and default unfiltered behavior. It stops short of clarifying safety/read-only semantics and its relationship to other item-related tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: job is tied to JobEnum 1-10, weapon_prefix is a WeaponID prefix such as 'wp07', and name is a substring filter. It does not cover null/default behavior or matching details such as case sensitivity, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 identifies the resource as the weapon item table and lists its fields, so an agent can tell this is a weapon-data lookup rather than a general item tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as dd2_items, so it falls short of 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?

It explains how to filter by job, weapon prefix, or name substring, and notes that an unfiltered call returns counts per type. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like dd2_items.

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