get_build_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It only says 'Extract' without explicitly confirming read-only behavior, failure modes, or dependency on a saved build file. This leaves safety and side effects undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes helpful examples. It is concise without being incomplete, though it could briefly state what the function returns.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values and expected behavior. It only lists example stats and does not mention output format, error handling, or how this differs from similar tools, making it inadequate for fully informed use.

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 already fully describes the single parameter build_name with 'Name of the build file' (100% schema coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Extract') and resource ('stats from a build') with concrete examples (Life, DPS, resistances). It is clear and distinct, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like analyze_build, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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