getHero

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'get' implicitly suggests a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior, auth requirements, or the structure of the returned detailed information. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse. There is no repetitive or extraneous content.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but not thorough. Since there is no output schema, the vague 'detailed information' leaves the return format undisclosed. The lack of explanation about how worldId contextualizes the hero is another gap, but overall the tool's simplicity keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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% coverage for both parameters (heroId described as 'Hero ID to retrieve' and worldId as 'World ID'). The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why both are needed or their relationship. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description merely reinforces the heroId purpose.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific hero' clearly states the action (get) and resource (hero), and specifies it's for a specific hero, distinguishing it from list-level operations like listHeroes. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation and the term 'detailed information' is somewhat vague about what exactly will be returned.

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 like listHeroes or getWorldState. It does not explain the context in which a specific hero ID is known or how the worldId parameter relates to the lookup, leaving the agent to infer usage from the names alone.

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