getHeroSkins

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what data is included (rarity tiers, unlock methods, visual variants), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with a single sentence that efficiently communicates purpose, scope, and included data elements. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality followed by specific details about what's included.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It clearly states what the tool does and what data it returns, but lacks information about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and response structure that would be needed for full contextual understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage with a clear 'Hero ID' parameter description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 specific action ('List all cosmetic skins/outfits'), target resource ('for a hero'), and scope ('available for a hero'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'listSkins' by specifying hero-specific filtering and from 'getHeroInfo' by focusing only on cosmetic skins rather than general hero information.

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 context by specifying 'for a hero' and listing included data (rarity tiers, unlock methods, visual variants), which helps differentiate from broader tools like 'listSkins'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives for different scenarios.

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