analyze_skill_links

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the general shape of what comes back (archetype, per-gem ratings, issue list), which is above-average disclosure. However, it never states that the operation is read-only and does not modify the build, nor does it mention any depth, cost, or latency characteristics for an analysis that rates every support gem.

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, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'evaluate support gem choices' and 'rates each support gem', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive analysis tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it names the output categories without describing their form. An agent knows roughly what it will learn but not what the response looks like or whether the call is side-effect free.

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 100%, with both build_name and skill_index already documented including the 0 = main skill default. The description adds nothing to parameter meaning beyond implying build_name scopes the whole analysis; it does not clarify how skill_index interacts with multi-skill setups. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Analyze skill gem setup') and enumerates three concrete outputs: archetype detection, per-support-gem ratings, and issue identification. It is clearly a diagnostic/rating read, but it never names or contrasts itself with the closely related siblings (optimize_skill_links, find_optimal_links, compare_gem_setups).

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?

Usage is only implied: 'identifies issues with current setup' suggests this is for inspecting an existing setup rather than generating a new one. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion for the optimization siblings, and no prerequisite (e.g., that build_name must already exist).

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