check_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently lists the categories of issues it flags and states that it returns 'findings + ok,' giving the agent a clear model of what the tool checks and returns. It omits side-effect and auth details, but for a validation tool this is reasonable.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loading the action and then adding concrete details about checks and return value. 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?

The description covers the tool's core purpose and return shape, which is adequate for a simple validation tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around parameter details and usage guidance that would help an agent invoke it correctly in a broader workflow.

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 must compensate for the six undocumented parameters. It does not explain hero, pet, crest, talent, insignia, or enchantment, nor how they map to the '5-slot' concept. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no meaning is added beyond what the schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies the resource ('5-slot build'), then enumerates concrete checks: reflection redundancy, energy gaps, missing reflection/ATK, signature-talent HP penalties, and revive suggestions. This makes it distinct from sibling build-related tools like build_score or generate_build.

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 clearly implies the tool is for validating an existing build configuration, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer check_build over alternatives such as build_score or recommend_build, nor does it list exclusions.

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