L2Tools — Lineage 2 Reference Data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the scope of the returned record (stats, traits, skills, locations, provenance), which is useful. It doesn't mention error behavior for invalid IDs, but with annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and fields, zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with two required params and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that the chronicle parameter is not explained in the description, though the schema enum makes it self-documenting. No output schema exists, but the description lists the returned categories, which is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that npcId is a numeric NPC ID and that the record includes stats/traits/etc., but it doesn't explain the chronicle parameter at all. The schema's enum and required fields carry the rest, so the description adds partial but not complete meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('NPC record') plus the exact fields returned ('stats, traits, skills, locations and provenance'). It also specifies the ID type ('numeric NPC ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling search_npcs and get_npc_drops.

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 this is the direct fetch-by-ID tool, and the sibling list includes search_npcs for finding IDs and get_npc_drops for a different resource. It doesn't explicitly state 'use search_npcs when you don't have an ID', but the contrast is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already cover the important safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds that the values are 'effective' and 'x1' probabilities, adding slight context, but it doesn't explain what 'effective' means or what the response contains.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the operation, the resource, the rate type, and the required input scope.

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 simple read-only lookup with two required parameters, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the exact data returned and the input requirement. It could also mention the role of chronicle or the return shape, but the low complexity keeps this gap minor.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies npcId by saying 'one numeric NPC ID', but it gives no explanation of the required chronicle parameter or how it affects the probabilities. This is only partial compensation.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get effective x1 drop and spoil probabilities' for a specific NPC ID. It is precise and obviously distinct from siblings like get_npc or search_npcs, but it never explicitly names or contrasts itself 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?

The phrase 'for one numeric NPC ID' implies the intended use: when you already have a known NPC ID and need drop/spoil rates. It provides no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's added stage-number semantics and chance/transition scope provide useful extra behavioral context. The description does not contradict annotations and gives a concrete interpretation of the returned stages.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the clarifying stage-number convention earns its place by removing ambiguity from the result interpretation.

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 simple read-only lookup with two required parameters and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks any mention of return shape or the meaning of the chronicle enum values, but the core call intent and one important interpretation detail are present.

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 0%, and the description provides no direct explanation for npcId or chronicle beyond the implicit 'one NPC'. The parameter names and enum are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('Soul Crystal result stages, transitions and chances') plus the scope ('for one NPC'). It also clarifies the numbering convention ('Result stage N means N-1 to N'), which distinguishes the semantic of the output from vague progression terminology.

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 clearly indicates this is for a single NPC's Soul Crystal data, which implies a use case separate from list/search tools like search_npcs or general NPC info tools like get_npc. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about the inclusive range and the per-level/cumulative nature of the returned values, though it does not describe output shape, error behavior, or validation beyond the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the key information with no filler; every word adds meaning.

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 simple read-only lookup with three parameters and a self-explanatory enum, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It explains the returned value semantics, but a small gap remains around the chronicle parameter and expected output format.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that the range is inclusive, which helps for fromLevel/toLevel, but it never mentions the chronicle parameter or its enum options, leaving a material gap.

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 the specific action ('Get'), the resource ('per-level and cumulative experience values'), and the scope ('inclusive level range'). This clearly differentiates the tool from its NPC- and soul-crystal-focused siblings.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives; usage must be inferred from the tool's subject matter. Although the siblings are unrelated, the description itself does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the chronicle scoping and the search types (name or ID). It does not describe return format or pagination, but that is less critical given the annotation coverage and the tool's simple search nature.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or unnecessary detail. It avoids redundancy with the schema and annotations.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description omits details about result structure (e.g., whether it returns a list of NPC IDs, names, or full records) and matching semantics (exact vs. partial). While the description covers the core search intent, an agent would benefit from knowing the return format and that the search is likely a partial match on name or exact ID. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap.

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 only 33% (only the 'chronicle' parameter has a description). The description partially compensates by indicating that 'query' accepts a name or numeric ID, but it adds nothing about the 'limit' parameter. The 'chronicle' parameter's enum and description are sufficient, but the gap on 'limit' and the implicit nature of query semantics prevent a higher score.

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 verb ('search'), the resource ('NPCs'), the scope ('chronicle-scoped'), and the search criteria ('by name or numeric ID'). It also implies a workflow position with 'before opening a record', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_npc. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 phrase 'before opening a record' provides clear context that this tool is a precursor to fetching a specific NPC, implying get_npc as the follow-up. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference required. Still, the contextual cue is strong.

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