get_equipment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the source table and the type of content returned (per-level HP/Attack plus effect text), which is useful. However, it does not state whether a single record is returned, how missing names are handled, or whether this is strictly read-only.

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, dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource type and key content details. It could be slightly more structured to separate behavior from parameter guidance, but it remains concise and scannable.

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 one-parameter getter, the description gives the core return contents and source table, but with no output schema and no annotations, an agent is left without explicit guidance on output format, valid name values, or how this relates to other equipment/search tools. It is adequate but not complete.

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 explaining the 'name' parameter. It does not explicitly state that 'name' should be an equipment identifier or provide format/casing guidance. The connection is inferable from the tool name and resource type, but the description adds little beyond the schema's existing 'Name' title.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving an equipment item from the Equipment table and specifies the relevant data fields (per-level HP/Attack and effect text). This distinguishes it from sibling lookups like get_hero, get_talent, or get_rune, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool when you need equipment data such as per-level stats or effect text. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative tools might be preferable, such as get_game_table, get_catalog_entry, or search_all.

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