build_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it clarifies this is a non-fight calculation ('without a fight'), gives the offense formula, and cites 'verified combat math' as credibility. It doesn't explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, but pure computation is strongly implied.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, output metrics, formula, data-source caveat, and a shape-sharing hint. Every clause earns its place and the content is front-loaded.

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?

The definition covers what is computed and the intended comparison use case, but with no output schema and seven parameters it leaves gaps: the range/meaning of the 'grade', the exact effective stats returned, and the semantics of most parameters are 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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. It only explains that loadout_json has the same shape hero_stats_calc accepts; hero, evo, level, stars, talent, and talent_lvl are left without additional meaning.

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 ('Grade a build') and names exact outputs: effective stats, EHP, and an offense score formula. It also differentiates from fight/simulation siblings by saying 'without a fight' and narrows scope to 'compare builds on one hero.'

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 explicitly states the intended use case: comparing builds on one hero. It also gives a shape-sharing hint with hero_stats_calc, but it doesn't name the tools this should replace or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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