Skill planner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description usefully adds what content is produced (methods, materials, cost, quests), but omits pagination/continuation behavior even though a cursor parameter exists.

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 the usage trigger front-loaded before the output summary. The second sentence is a dense list but every element describes a distinct output, so it largely earns its space.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return content, and it does so concretely. For a 7-parameter, read-only planner with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the main remaining gap is the cursor/continuation semantics.

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%, so the schema already documents skill, method, player, target, currentXp/currentLevel and cursor. The description gestures at a 'method' and level/XP targeting but adds no syntax, format, or fallback rules beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (plan toward a level/XP goal) and enumerates what it returns: XP remaining, a method's actions/materials/cost, best methods at level, and XP-rewarding quests. That distinguishes it from lookup-style siblings like get_player_progress, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 opening sentence gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the player wants to reach a level or XP goal.' It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g. get_player_progress for raw progress), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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