build_list_ability_boost_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does so excellently. It discloses exactly which data sources are respected (ancestry flaws, Pathbuilder's breakdown field), what is not yet checked (the two-free-boosts rule), and what is delegated elsewhere. This is transparent about the tool's internal logic and limitations.

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 somewhat long but every clause carries important information. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds caveats and redirects. No filler words or redundant statements, but it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 complexity of ability boost rules and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the source parameter, the integration with Pathbuilder's breakdown, the known exception not handled, and points to validate_build for full cross-source validation. This gives an agent all necessary context to decide whether and how to invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter meanings. It explains that 'source' is one of the enum values and clarifies how 'character' is used (specifically its abilities.breakdown field). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't describe the full structure of the character object.

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 states exactly what the tool does: lists eligible ability score boosts for a given source. It names the specific resource (ability boost options), the input (source), and the constraints (ancestry flaws, recorded boosts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_list_skill_increase_options or build_list_available_feats.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (for a single source's boosts) and when not to use it (for full multi-source interaction), pointing to validate_build as the alternative. It also notes the known limitation about the 'two free boosts' rule, giving clear usage boundaries.

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