Get debuffs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context via 'bounded' and clarifies that playerID is mapped to WCL targetID, but it does not explain the exact meaning of 'bounded' or describe response behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a high-value parameter clarification. Every part earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description leaves 'debuff evidence' undefined: it does not say what the tool returns, how 'bounded' is enforced, or how fields like maxEntries and maxPayloadBytes affect output. With 11 parameters and no output schema, a minimal two-sentence description is not complete enough for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 64%, so the schema already documents the meaning of most parameters. The description adds one valuable clarification: 'playerID is correctly applied as WCL targetID,' which goes beyond the schema's generic 'maps it to the correct source/target filter.' However, it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters like abilityID or translate, and several parameters rely entirely on their schema entries.

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 clear action and resource: 'Get bounded debuff evidence on a player.' The verb 'Get' and noun 'debuff evidence' make the core purpose apparent, and the phrase 'on a player' scopes it to a player context. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_buffs, but the debuff focus is enough to distinguish it from most siblings.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_buffs, get_dispels, or get_deaths. It implies a player-focused debuff query, but does not state exclusions, preferred conditions, or how it differs from related tools. An agent would have to infer usage mainly from the tool name.

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