skill_levels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the source ('decoded Skill.data'), the output kind (per-level effect + English description), and accepted input forms, but it does not describe the return shape, unknown-skill behavior, or whether this is purely 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?

Two short sentences, with the core output and scope front-loaded and the parameter clarification placed directly after. Every word earns its place.

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 one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential selection and invocation information: what it returns and how to fill 'skill'. However, it lacks any relationship to sibling skill tools and does not illustrate the shape of the returned per-level data, so the agent still has some uncertainty.

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 input schema only declares a required string 'skill', so the description compensates by defining it as a skill name or numeric name_id and giving a concrete example. This is meaningful semantic information for the only parameter, though it does not specify the exact format of numeric name_id.

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 the tool provides per-level effects and English descriptions for game skills, with a concrete example input ('Divine Shield'). The scope ('421 game skills') is specific and the operation is obviously a lookup, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like skill_data or skill_damage.

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 choose this tool over skill_data, skill_damage, or effect_at_level. The description implies a generic lookup use case but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.

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