totem_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output consists of per-level English descriptions and references the data source (totem_skills_full), but it does not clarify expected return format, read-only nature, or behavior for missing or invalid hero values.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though it sacrifices some useful detail about the hero parameter and expected behavior.

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?

With one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to tell the agent how to invoke the tool correctly and what to expect in return. It only states the resource and that descriptions are per-level in English; it lacks input format guidance, output structure hints, and any connection to sibling tools.

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 provides no description for the hero parameter (0% coverage), and the tool description only mentions 'hero' implicitly through 'A hero's.' It does not specify whether hero should be a name, ID, or slug, nor does it provide examples or accepted formats. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('a hero's Totem skill') and adds a useful detail ('English description per level'), which helps distinguish it from generic skill-related siblings like skill_data or skill_damage. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' so the action is only implied.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving a hero's Totem skill, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not contrast it with alternatives such as get_talent, get_crest, or skill_data. There is no exclusion or routing information, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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