build_get_level_up_choices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It transparently explains that only two variant rules affect the output, that other valid slugs are recognized but ignored, and describes the exact effect of each relevant rule. It does not mention mutation or side effects, but the tool name implies a read-only operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, opening with the main purpose before detailing variant rules. The dash-separated list for variant-rule edge cases is scannable, and every sentence adds meaningful information without 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?

The tool has high complexity due to level-gate arrays and variant rules, and the description covers the core behaviors, variant effects, and related tool calls. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, though the character parameter structure and potential error conditions are not addressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `variant_rules` and clarifies that `target_level` is the level at which unlocks are computed. However, `character` is only referenced as containing the character's class, leaving its structure underdefined even though it is a required parameter.

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 reports what unlocks at a target level for the character's class, including specific content like feat categories, skill increases, and automatically-granted class features. This verb+resource+scope formulation distinguishes it from sibling tools by describing a consolidated level-up view.

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 gives practical guidance by noting ability boosts follow core PF2e rules rather than class-specific data, and it explicitly tells the caller to use build_list_available_feats for archetype-feat slots when the free-archetype variant rule is active. However, it does not broadly contrast with all sibling tools or provide a general 'when not to use' statement.

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