build_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the return value is instructional content for selecting tools and framing builds, not query results, and the 'once, before anything else' clause implies it is a session-level priming step rather than a repeatable data fetch. It does not describe the length or structure of the returned guidance, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences with zero waste, and the operative instruction ('call this once, before anything else') is front-loaded before the payoff description. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to invoke it. Completion would require a hint about how the returned guidance should be applied or reused across the conversation, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to obtain the guidance.

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 ('returns') and clarifies that the payload is procedural guidance—how to pick tools, reason from synergies, present builds—rather than Warframe data, which separates it from siblings like list_mods or warframe_build. The trigger scope is broad ('builds, mods, enemies or what to sell'), which slightly blurs its identity against domain-specific siblings, but the meta/guidance nature is 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?

It gives an unusually explicit invocation rule—'Call this once, before anything else'—with the triggering condition (any question about builds, mods, enemies, selling). What is missing is guidance on when not to call it (e.g., once the guide has been consumed, or when a direct sibling tool suffices), so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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