encounter_build

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, and it succeeds: it specifies ruleset-specific mechanics, the extra difficulty tiers, whether the XP multiplier applies, and what the tool returns (total XP, adjusted XP for 2014, difficulty label, threshold breakdown). An agent can predict behavior without needing an output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent clause adds a distinct piece of information: ruleset support, mode differences, tier additions, and return values. The labeled-mode structure makes the relatively long description easy to scan without wasted words.

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 three-parameter tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the required inputs, the two operational modes, the output contents, and the mode-specific differences. No essential behavior needed to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline applies and the schema already documents partyLevels, monsterCrs, and ruleset. The description adds useful mode context, such as why ruleset matters and that adjusted XP is 2014-only, but it does not materially expand the meaning of the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Evaluate'), a concrete resource (D&D 5e encounter), and the core inputs (party composition and monster CRs). It is unmistakably clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cr_calculate or cr_scale, so it misses the top score for active sibling differentiation.

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 makes the intended use obvious: answer encounter-difficulty questions given a party and monster CR list. It also provides a clear decision rule for choosing between the 2014 and 2024 rulesets. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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