analyze_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only analysis ('suggest upgrades') but does not explicitly state that no changes are made, what output format is returned, or whether it requires a valid saved build. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core purpose and scope. Concise yet sufficiently informative for what it covers.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic function but omits key context. It does not describe the return value, the type of upgrade suggestions, or any side effects or permissions. This is a minimally viable description but leaves gaps.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'build_name' with a minimal description ('Build to analyze'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. It doesn't clarify format, constraints, or how the build is selected.

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 a specific action ('Analyze') on a specific resource ('equipped items') with an intended outcome ('suggest upgrades or improvements'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_build and analyze_defenses by focusing on equipped gear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, and does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where another analysis tool would be more appropriate.

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