effect_at_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns the level's effect text, optional might/cooldown, and the full range, which is useful for a read-only lookup. However, terms like 'full range' are ambiguous, and there is no mention of output format, failure behavior, or input constraints.

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 very short and front-loaded, with two sentences that each serve a purpose. It could be slightly more explicit about the level parameter format, but it is efficiently structured with no filler.

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 simple lookup tool with three string parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the core operation and return value. It is incomplete, though: 'full range' is ambiguous, and name/level parameter expectations 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 must compensate. It only clarifies the 'kind' parameter by specifying kind='talent' or 'hero', while 'name' and 'level' remain semantically undocumented, including expected formats or valid values.

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 clearly states that the tool returns the effect text of a talent or hero skill at a specific level, plus might/cooldown when present. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_talent or hero_skills by focusing on per-level effect text, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies usage for looking up a talent or hero skill effect at a given level, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over similar siblings such as skill_levels, hero_skills, get_talent, or skill_data. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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