lookup_weapon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the output categories (damage stats per fire mode, crit/status, components, build info) and the verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation. It does not detail error handling or edge cases, but for a lookup tool, the stated behavior is adequate.

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, well-formed sentence with a clear verb, object, and a colon-separated list of result categories. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return categories. It omits details like exact response format, case sensitivity, or error behavior, but for a simple lookup tool with a straightforward input schema, it provides enough context to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single `names` parameter, which already includes an example and constraints. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') and clearly identifies the resource (weapons by name), listing the exact types of data returned (damage stats, crit/status, components, build info). This distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like lookup_warframe, lookup_mod, and lookup_item by resource and data scope.

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 its use case: retrieving detailed weapon information by name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, especially since it includes 'build info' which might overlap with lookup_builds. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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