hero_stats_calc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the stat formula, evolution parameter source, talent percentage application, type semantics for inscription/soularms/artifact, gear_json format, and the effective-stats output. This is substantial transparency, though some edge behaviors remain unstated.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: formula, validation example, talent behavior, sibling preference, and parameter semantics are all included. Given the tool has 16 parameters, the length is justified and information is well front-loaded.

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 complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a strong foundation but still leaves meaningful gaps. Several input parameters are not explained, and the exact expected format for loadout_json is missing. An agent would likely still be uncertain about how to populate all schema fields correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for talent/talent_lvl, evo, inscription/soularms/artifact, and gear_json, but it leaves several parameters unexplained, including crest_name, crest_level, pet_talent, pet_talent_level, loadout_json, and soul. This is partial but not complete compensation.

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 that this is a formula-based hero stat calculator, provides the formula, and validates it with a concrete example. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling hero_stats tool by noting that hero_stats caps stars at 4, so purpose and differentiation are both strong.

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 explicitly says to prefer this tool over hero_stats because hero_stats caps stars at 4, which is a clear usage signal against the closest alternative. However, it does not fully map out when to use this versus all other sibling tools, so it is not a perfect 5.

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