Slayer master tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: results reflect the saved account unless a player filter is supplied ('only tasks it can be assigned are counted'), which is non-obvious conditional behavior beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded on the purpose and return contents. Well sized for a simple read tool, though it trades some completeness for brevity.

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 read-only, single-master query with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (tasks with amounts, weights, chances) and the account-conditioning rule. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with cursor, master, and player all documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of account-vs-player filtering adds a little meaning but no parameter syntax or format beyond the schema.

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 names the specific resource (what a slayer master assigns) and even previews the return fields (amounts, weights, chances), so an agent knows what it gets. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no adjacent tool covers slayer assignment data, so the purpose reads clearly.

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 implies usage (query a master's assignable tasks) and explains the account-dependent behavior, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and names no alternative tool. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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