get_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'details and visualization', hinting at output content, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or how it handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the current working draft level') and adds specifics ('with details and visualization'). There's no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 0 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does. However, with no annotations and siblings like 'preview_level' that might overlap, it lacks completeness in clarifying uniqueness and behavioral context. It's minimal but functional for a simple retrieval 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add param info, but that's unnecessary here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current working draft level', specifying it includes 'details and visualization'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_level_requirements' or 'get_campaign_example' by focusing on the current draft. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'preview_level' or 'visualize_level', which might offer similar visualization features.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a loaded draft), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'preview_level' or 'visualize_level'. The context is implied as retrieving draft data, but no explicit usage rules are given.

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