classfeature_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results come from embedded class files and explains the semantic difference between the '2024' and '2014' rulesets. This is meaningful behavior beyond what the schema states, though it does not mention edge cases like no results or homebrew behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential filter guidance and ruleset semantics. Every sentence contributes operational value, and there is no filler or repetition. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description does a solid job of covering the important invocation details: search target, filter semantics, and ruleset behavior. It does not describe default limits or result structure in depth, but the schema already covers defaults and the tool is conceptually simple for a search operation. The description is sufficiently complete for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying how query works as a partial name search, how class_name scopes results, and how level filters by when a feature is gained. The ruleset explanation supplements the enum definition by explaining the real-world source books. This exceeds the baseline without redundancy.

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 action ('Search D&D 5e class features') and identifies the resource ('classFeature array embedded in class files'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like subclassfeature_search or feat_search. The inclusion of filters like class_name, level, and ruleset makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 concrete guidance on when to use filters such as class_name and level, with an example ('Wizard'). It also explains how the ruleset parameter changes the source data, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the usage context is strong enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate.

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