heropedia

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that content is canonical, returned as raw markdown, that lookup requires exact names, and that regex/fuzzy matching is not supported.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action and resource lead, lookup modes follow, and the exclusion is stated at the end.

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 read tool with a non-trivial oneOf schema and no output schema, the description explains both valid lookup modes and the output format. It does not discuss not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap given the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It explains id as a unique entry id preferred after LIST and explains hero_name + role_name as an exact-name alternative, which adds meaningful use-case meaning beyond the raw oneOf schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieve), a specific resource (complete canonical Heropedia Role content), and the exact output form (raw markdown). It also distinguishes itself from listing tools by specifying lookup by unique id or exact hero_name + role_name and by noting it is not a regex tool.

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?

Gives clear context: use id after LIST, use exact hero_name + role_name when both names are known. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools, but 'after LIST' and the sibling names make the when-to-use distinction clear; 'Not a regex tool' rules out fuzzy use.

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 safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds value by disclosing pagination behavior, the exact returned fields, and the explicit exclusion of full Role prompts. This is especially useful given the absence of an output 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides return details and a key exclusion. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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, paginated listing tool with safety annotations, the description covers the return fields and a notable exclusion. It does not specify the exact response envelope (e.g., array of objects), but the given metadata list and schema constraints make the tool adequately invocable.

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 bears the burden, but it only says 'using pagination' without explaining page/page_size meaning. The parameter names, types, defaults, and ranges in the schema make the intent reasonably clear, but the description does not add meaningful extra semantics.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Heropedia Hero/Role entries'), and clarifies that it returns lightweight metadata, distinguishing it from detail or filtered-list siblings like getDetail, getListByHero, and getListByRole.

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 a general paginated listing use case and mentions that full Role prompts are not returned, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer getDetail or getListByHero/getListByRole. Usage context is present but routing is left to inference.

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. The description adds non-redundant behavioral context: regex is case-insensitive, only a 'safe subset' of regex is supported, and the response is 'lightweight metadata.' This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps set expectations about matching behavior and return payload.

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 four sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the usage condition and key behavioral nuances. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 list tool with safe annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, regex behavior, and return weight. It does not detail pagination semantics or what 'lightweight metadata' contains, but the schema defaults and the tool's simple nature make this a minor gap. Overall, an agent has enough to select and correctly invoke the 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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies the hero_regex parameter by noting it is a regex, case-insensitive, and restricted to a safe subset. However, the optional page and page_size parameters are not explained in the description, leaving their semantics to inference from names and schema constraints. The main parameter is covered, but not all parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Heropedia Hero/Role entries'), and narrows the scope by the matching criterion ('Hero name matches the supplied regex'). It also distinguishes this from siblings by emphasizing hero-based lookup versus role-based lookup, so an agent can tell it apart from getListByRole.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you know or can identify the Hero and want to inspect that Hero's available Roles,' giving a clear condition for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling context and the clear when-to-use clause provide sufficient 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?

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: case-insensitive regex, a restricted 'safe subset', and lightweight metadata returns. This adds behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences carry distinct information: purpose, usage trigger, and behavioral caveats. There is slight redundancy between 'List ... matches the supplied regex' and 'inspect Heroes offering a particular Role', preventing a perfect score.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives filtering semantics, regex behavior, and return nature ('lightweight metadata'). Missing explicit pagination guidance and sibling routing are minor given the schema defaults and simple tool shape.

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 role_regex semantics well ('matches', case-insensitive, safe subset), but says nothing about page or page_size; those rely on their self-evident names and schema defaults/min/max. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 and resource: 'List Heropedia Hero/Role entries whose Role name matches the supplied regex.' The role-focused filter makes it semantically distinct from the sibling getListByHero, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use when you want to inspect Heroes offering a particular Role' provides a clear and explicit trigger for using this tool. It does not state when-not-to-use conditions or point to alternatives, which keeps this at a 4 rather than a 5.

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