recommend_build

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing that the engine fills remaining slots, avoids anti-synergies with specific examples, and explains every pick. This goes beyond the schema. It could mention error handling or conflicting constraints, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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 primary action in the first sentence. The parenthetical examples add useful specificity without fluff. It is slightly dense as a single long sentence, but every clause contributes information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is not fully sufficient. It omits the meaning of `mode`, does not clarify the output structure beyond 'explains every pick,' and does not differentiate the tool from closely related siblings. An agent could call it with just a hero, but the surrounding decision-making and input semantics are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the five build-slot parameters by framing them as optional fixed slots and giving an example. However, it says nothing about the required `hero` parameter and leaves `mode` completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Recommend a full 5-slot build' and enumerates the slots (talent, crest, insignia, enchantment, pet). It also conveys the core behavior of filling unspecified slots. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling generate_build, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives a concrete usage mechanism: 'Pass any slot to fix it... the engine fills the rest.' However, it provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like generate_build, check_build, or build_score, and states no exclusion criteria. An agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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