assert_conquerors_haki

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It explains that weak elements are knocked out and a ranked list is forced, with strictness levels controlling survivors. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or modifies state, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Description is relatively concise, front-loading with a metaphor and then plain explanation. The 'Args' section is separate and clear. Could be slightly more direct but overall well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description explains the core operation and parameter details adequately. It covers the prioritization logic and strictness levels. While output is not described, the existence of an output schema reduces the burden.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It provides clear, meaningful explanations for all three parameters: items list, north star goal with examples, and strictness level with defined options. Adds significant value beyond 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 states it will produce a ranked priority list from a chaotic list of items, using a goal and strictness level. The verb 'exert willpower' is metaphorical but the action is clear. No sibling tools exist to differentiate, so purpose is clear.

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 implies usage when there is a chaotic list of ideas/tasks/features needing prioritization against a single goal. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor mention alternatives.

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