lookup_builds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the data source (Overframe.gg) and the output nature (top-voted builds with mod lists, computed stats, and build guides), giving a solid sense of what the tool does. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup tool, this is acceptable and above minimal viability.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the action ('Find') and immediately specify the resource and source. Every clause contributes: the first sentence states the core function, the second clarifies the output details. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 the medium complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it finds, for which item types, and what it returns. It lacks explicit error-handling or empty-result expectations, but it sufficiently sets user expectations for a lookup tool. It earns a 4 for being nearly complete, only missing edge-case details.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight context by indicating 'top-voted builds' and 'one or more' items, but it does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema already says. No compensation is needed, but no extra value is given either.

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 opens with a specific verb-action ('Find popular community mod builds') and clearly names the resource class (Warframes, weapons, companions) and source (Overframe.gg). It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools by focusing on community builds rather than raw item stats, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 sets clear context: it is for retrieving community mod builds, not generic item data. Though it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., lookup_weapon for raw stats), the specificity of 'community mod builds' strongly implies when this tool should be used, and it provides no misleading guidance. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions.'

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