optimize_skill_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly frames the tool as read-only ('analyze', 'flags', 'suggests') and outlines the behavioral scope (missing multiplicative supports, clear-speed vs bossing balance). This gives a clear safety profile and output behavior, though it does not delve into limitations like build format requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and contains zero filler. Every clause adds substantive detail about what the analysis covers and what it produces.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it covers inputs implicitly (the build to analyze) and outputs (flags and suggestions). It could mention output format or use cases, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequately complete.

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% for the single parameter build_name, which is described as 'Build to analyze'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 analyzes skill gem setups for 'more' multipliers, penetration, and support gem synergies, which distinctively separates it from sibling tools like analyze_build or analyze_items. The verb 'analyze' plus a specific resource (skill gem setups) and concrete outputs (flags missing supports, suggests balance) make the purpose unmistakable.

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 for gem-link optimization but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like analyze_build or optimize_tree. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the context from the tool name and sibling list.

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