get_rune

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the data content: per-level HP/Attack plus an effect. It does not mention return shape, matching behavior, or edge cases, so transparency is 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 compact and front-loaded with the resource name, and there is no filler text. However, it is cryptic and saves space at the cost of clarity, so it is only adequately concise.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain both input and output more fully. It gives a hint about the returned fields but omits how the name parameter works, what a successful result looks like, and what happens for unknown names.

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?

The schema has one required 'name' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never clarifies that 'name' is the rune's name or what values are accepted. The reference to '101' could be mistaken as a parameter, adding ambiguity.

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 ('Rune') and table ('Runes table, 101') and, combined with the tool name get_rune, makes the operation clear. It is distinct from sibling getters like get_talent or get_hero, though it lacks an explicit verb in the description itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call get_rune versus alternatives such as get_talent or search_game_data. The description implies this is for rune data but does not state exclusions or conditions.

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