cy_matches_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, which are crucial for a retrieval tool. While the parameter is well-covered, the overall context for effective tool use is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'matchId' documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used for lookup ('매치 ID로'), but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('조회합니다' - retrieve/look up) and resource ('매칭 상세 정보' - match details), and identifies the key input ('매치 ID로' - by match ID). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cy_players_matches' which might also retrieve match-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'cy_players_matches' for player-specific matches or 'cy_battleitems_get' for item details), leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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