analyze_defenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly implies a read-only analysis operation through terms like 'deep-dive' and 'breakdown', and adds important context about how this tool relates to validate_build. It does not disclose potential cost or side effects, but for a read-only analysis tool this is sufficient.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key defensive categories, then includes usage guidance and an alternative. Every sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry the load. It adequately explains the tool's scope and relationship to validate_build. However, it could optionally describe the expected return format (e.g., a breakdown report) to be fully complete, but the listed defensive layers imply what will be returned. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an analysis 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single parameter build_name is documented as 'Build to analyze'. The description does not add any additional detail about the parameter, so it does not exceed the schema baseline. A score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool performs a deep-dive into defensive layers, explicitly listing defensive metrics (EHP, spell suppression, evasion, block, armour/PDR, life regen, leech). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool validate_build by noting that validate_build already covers this and analyze_defenses is for more detailed breakdowns.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when you specifically want detailed defense breakdown.' It also names the alternative (validate_build) and explains when NOT to use this tool separately, which is exactly what the dimension requires.

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