get_crest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It does reveal that results are per-level stats and lists the stat categories, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not state the output shape, error behavior, whether it is read-only, or whether data is computed dynamically, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the included stats. It is reasonably efficient, though the shorthand and lack of sentences explaining input/output reduce clarity slightly.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what a caller receives, but it only lists stat names without structure, units, level range, or an example. It also does not clarify the 'name' parameter enough for confident invocation. For a simple one-parameter tool this is borderline, but the missing input semantics and return format make it incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, and the only parameter is a generic 'name' with no description. The tool description implies name refers to a crest, but it never explicitly states that 'name' is the crest name, what accepted values look like, or whether the listed camps are valid inputs. This leaves the agent to infer the parameter's 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 identifies the resource ('career crest') and enumerates the returned data fields (Attack/HP/Tenacity/Crit/Dodge/Hit_DMG per level), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'gets' or 'returns', and it does not contrast with sibling tools, but the resource and content are specific enough to distinguish it from get_talent/get_rune/get_equipment.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use get_crest versus alternatives such as get_talent, get_insignia, or get_equipment. The only implied context is 'career crest', and there is no indication of prerequisites, exclusions, or fallback tools.

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