get_soularm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful semantic context beyond the name: the values are 'flat' additive bonuses (not scaling multipliers) and represent 'base stats' rather than modified totals. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens for an out-of-range or invalid level, or what the response contains.

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?

A single 15-word sentence with the core subject front-loaded ('Soul-Arms base stats') and a clarifying parenthetical appended. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, restated schema, or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is returned (flat Attack/HP/Tenacity) and what the input means (a level). The remaining gaps — valid level range and any expectation of the response format — are notable precisely because no structured metadata exists to fill them.

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 schema offers only a bare integer 'level' with no explanation. The description compensates partially by tying the parameter to its purpose ('at a given level'), which tells the agent the level selects which stat row to fetch. It stops short of providing a valid range, bounds, or level-scaling behavior, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 names a specific resource ('Soul-Arms base stats') and a precise scope ('at a given level'), and adds semantic clarity by specifying the stats are 'flat Attack/HP/Tenacity added to a hero.' This distinguishes it from sibling item-lookup tools like get_talent, get_insignia, or get_equipment by subject matter, though it never explicitly names a sibling or states what it is not.

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 use this tool versus the many sibling lookup tools, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied: choose this tool when the agent needs Soul-Arms base stats by level. Among roughly 40 siblings including get_talent, get_crest, and get_enchantment, the description offers no routing help.

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