generate_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool performs pure numeric/stat ranking, supports three named objectives, and scores talent and crest together. It does not disclose return format, error behaviors, or whether hero name requires normalization.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action, inputs, and output; the second gives a clear cross-check directive. Everything 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description explains the core operation and output adequately but omits parameter defaults, valid/expected value formats, and the relationship to the sibling build_score tool. It is enough for a basic call but not fully self-sufficient.

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 does meaningfully: objective is explicitly given valid values ('offense', 'ehp' or 'balanced'), top is implied by 'top options per slot', and talent_lvl/crest_level are implied by 'talent + crest scored together'. Hero is obvious from context.

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 the tool's function: it ranks talent and crest slots for a hero using build_score for an objective and returns the best full build plus top options per slot. This distinctive combination of ranking, scoring, and build selection separates it from siblings like check_build or recommend_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 provides explicit guidance to cross-check recommend_build when pure stat ranking is involved, naming the alternative and the caveat. It does not enumerate exclusions versus all siblings, but it gives a concrete decision signal for 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.