recommend_mechanic_apis

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup/recommendation and the output schema covers the return shape, but it never states that it is non-mutating, whether the recommendation is authoritative, or how results are scoped. Useful context, but incomplete disclosure for a no-annotation 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?

Two tight sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded before the usage context. Every clause 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?

For a moderate-complexity recommendation tool with an output schema and a single required parameter, the description covers purpose and when to use it adequately. The main residual gap is the shape/semantics of the 'topic' input and the non-mutating guarantee.

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% for the single 'topic' parameter. The description's phrase 'a requested mechanic' implicitly tells the agent the topic is a mechanic name, which is genuinely helpful, but it does not explain expected granularity or format (free text, known mechanic id, etc.).

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?

States a specific verb ('Map') and a specific resource set ('official services, events, objects, and types'), which distinguishes it from the sibling read_* tools that retrieve one item at a time. It is clear what the tool produces, though it never names an alternative tool directly.

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 'Use before implementing...' sentence gives concrete trigger conditions across many mechanic areas (persistence, abilities, input/UI, combat, etc.), which is strong contextual guidance. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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